MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074562412 · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.2.160

The relationship between response rate and effect size in occupational health psychology research.

2001· article· en· W2074562412 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphGuelph Chemical Labs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySample size determinationCorrelationStatisticsVariance (accounting)InteractionEconometricsSocial psychologyMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the relationship between response rate and effect size in self-report survey research. The correlation between response rate and effect size was calculated for 4 variable combinations, and the results were combined using meta-analytic procedures. The correlation of response rate and effect size was not significant for any individual sample. The average correlation between response rate and effect size was -.15, with a nonsignificant corrected variance across studies of .02. These results suggest only a small relationship between the response rate of a survey and the reported effect size between variables.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.355
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3550.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.694
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.001 · 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