E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys.
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
OBJECTIVE: To compare e-mail with regular mail for conducting surveys of physicians. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of physicians listed in the College of Family Physicians of Canada's membership database. INTERVENTIONS: Survey delivered by e-mail and by post. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rates and times, and completeness and characteristics of responses to the survey. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 44.7% (33.6% of e-mail recipients, 52.7% of post recipients who have e-mail, and 47.8% of post recipients without e-mail). While the e-mail rate was significantly lower than for both post groups, e-mail responses were received much faster. There was no significant difference among groups as to completeness of responses, but e-mail responses had more frequent and longer comments. CONCLUSION: E-mail provides faster but fewer responses to surveys. Content of structured-response questions was similar in all groups, but e-mail provided more and longer responses to open-ended questions. Where a quick response to a survey is required, e-mail is superior.
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 | 0.212 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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