MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149998251 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.080372

A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians

2008· review· en· W2149998251 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Karen E. A. Burns, Mark Duffett, Michelle E. Kho, M Meade, Neill K. J. Adhikari, T Sinuff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsSurvey researchResearch designComputer scienceSample (material)Medical educationData scienceMedicineFamily medicineManagement sciencePsychologyApplied psychologyStatisticsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survey research is an important form of scientific inquiry[1][1] that merits rigorous design and analysis.[2][2] The aim of a survey is to gather reliable and unbiased data from a representative sample of respondents.[3][3] Increasingly, investigators administer questionnaires to clinicians about

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.042

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 head0.424
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1,369
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207