MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067842482 · doi:10.3141/2246-06

Bayesian Approach for Identifying Efficient Stated-Choice Survey Designs with Reduced Prior Information

2011· article· en· W2067842482 on OpenAlexaff
Rinaldo Cavalcante, Matthew J. Roorda

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Variance (accounting)Survey data collectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Design of experimentsProcess (computing)RespondentFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methodData miningStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a stated-choice survey design in which reduced information is available about the values of the parameters. The main objective of the survey is to develop discrete choice models to analyze the carrier selection process by shippers. The only information available is the expected sign of the parameter in the utility function. Therefore, the use of a Bayesian approach is necessary in analyzing the efficiency of potential survey designs. The measure of efficiency adopted is the 95th percentile value of the D-error, the determinant of the asymptotic variance–covariance matrix, obtained via Monte Carlo simulation. This measure would maximize the expected gain of information with the experiment. In the survey, the respondents (shippers) will be asked to provide the main carrier's attributes used in the selection process. On the basis of the answers, the survey will be customized to each respondent (situation). In this paper, only the results of the design for situations in which shippers select continuous attributes are presented. An algorithm is developed in a statistical package to search and evaluate the efficiency of 1,000 randomly selected potential survey designs. The algorithm maintains the 10 most efficient designs to be evaluated and uses box plots to identify the most suitable design. The results show that the approach adopted improves the efficiency of the design substantially, which would result in more accurate models from the survey data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.269
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.269
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.415
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.063 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207