Sampling Bias in an International Internet Survey of Diversion Programs in the Criminal Justice System
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
Despite advances in the storage and retrieval of information within health care systems, health researchers conducting surveys for evaluations still face technical barriers that may lead to sampling bias. The authors describe their experience in administering a Web-based, international survey to English-speaking countries. Identifying the sample was a multistage effort involving (a) searching for published e-mail addresses, (b) conducting Web searches for publicly funded agencies, and (c) performing literature searches, personal contacts, and extensive Internet searches for individuals. After pretesting, the survey was converted into an electronic format accessible by multiple Web browsers. Sampling bias arose from (a) system incompatibility, which did not allow potential respondents to open the survey, (b) varying institutional gate-keeping policies that "recognized" the unsolicited survey as spam, (c) culturally unique program terminology, which confused some respondents, and (d) incomplete sampling frames. Solutions are offered to the first three problems, and the authors note that sampling bias remains a crucial problem.
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 | 0.334 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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