Evidence of recall bias in volunteered vs. prompted responses about occupational exposures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recall bias remains a concern in case-control studies, although few investigations have found evidence of differential recall. This study examined whether differences in occupational exposure reporting occur in volunteered vs. prompted questionnaire responses. METHODS: In a large, population-based, case-control study of a childhood cancer, neuroblastoma, we calculated odds ratios for broad occupational exposure groups on the assumption that in the absence of recall bias, risk estimates for such broad groupings should be close to the null value. RESULTS: Prompted exposures and work activities showed little evidence of differential recall by parents of cases and controls (all OR < 1.2), but case parents were more likely to volunteer information about other exposures or activities (ORs: 1.35-1.71). Case mothers were also more likely than control mothers to report activities involving indirect exposure (OR = 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that prompted exposure questions are less likely to be subject to recall bias than open-ended questions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it