MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124084011 · doi:10.1177/0047287509336467

Online Travel Surveys and Response Patterns

2009· article· en· W2124084011 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Travel Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTemple UniversityUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsRepresentativeness heuristicEconometricsStatisticsScale (ratio)Survey data collectionSample (material)Computer scienceOperations researchGeographyMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the benefits and issues with online surveys as it relates to response rates, speed of response, representativeness of the samples, and the differences in results due to different survey media. Analysis of the response data for four travel-related online surveys showed consistent response patterns. This article demonstrates that an exponential growth model is most appropriate when modeling the numbers of returns over time. The model can predict the final number of returns based on 7 or 8 days’ survey return numbers with a relatively small degree of error. The study suggests that surveying a pilot sample and analyzing their responses can allow a researcher to estimate the parameters of the response model for a large-scale survey and thus conduct a study in a more effective way.

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)0.326
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3260.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.499
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.064 · 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