MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137346916 · doi:10.1177/1525822x12453113

Examining the Gender Effects of Different Incentive Amounts in a Web Survey

2012· article· en· W2137346916 on OpenAlexafffund
Shelley Boulianne

Bibliographic record

VenueField Methods · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
FundersFaculty of Arts and SciencesMacEwan UniversityJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsIncentiveWeb surveyIncentive programSurvey data collectionPsychologyNon-response biasBusinessSocial psychologyMarketingEconomicsStatisticsEconometricsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers are struggling to determine effective methods to improve response rates to web surveys. This study presents the results of an experiment that varied the disbursement of an incentive in a web survey. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a $5 or a $10 prepaid incentive. In line with the social exchange theory of survey participation, no significant differences were found in response rate between the two conditions. However, the incentive amount interacted with gender. Specifically, women were more likely to respond to the survey when provided with a $5 incentive compared to a $10 incentive.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.099 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueField MethodsSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207