Impact of interviewing by proxy in travel survey conducted by telephone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Telephone‐interview surveys are a very efficient way of conducting large‐scale travel surveys. Recent advancements in computer technology have made it possible to improve upon the quality of data collected by telephone surveys through computerization of the entire sample‐control process, and through the direct recording of the collected data into a computer. Notwithstanding these technological advancements, potential sources of bias still exist, including the reliance on an adult member of the household to report the travel information of other household members. Travel data collected in a recent telephone interview survey in the Toronto region is used to examine this issue. The statistical tool used in the research was the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) technique as implemented within the general linear model framework in SAS. The study‐results indicate that reliance on informants to provide travel information for non‐informant members of their respective households led to the underreporting of some categories of trips. These underreported trip categories were primarily segments of home‐based discretionary trips, and non home‐based trips. Since these latter two categories of trips are made primarily outside the morning peak period, estimated factors to adjust for their underreporting were time‐period sensitive. Further, the number of vehicles available to the household, gender, and driver license status respectively were also found to be strongly associated with the underreporting of trips and thus were important considerations in the determination of adjustment factors. Work and school trips were found not to be underreported, a not surprising result giving the almost daily repetitiveness of trips made for these purposes and hence the ability of the informant to provide relatively more precise information on them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.209 | 0.500 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".