Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse over the Past Quarter Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We correct, update, and elaborate Curtin, Presser, and Singer’s (2000) report that the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumer Attitudes (SCA) experienced only a small response rate decline between 1979 and 1996, contrary to the widespread perception of plunging response rates. Our aims are to (1) correct errors in the SCA response rate data that affected Curtin, Presser, and Singer’s (2000) result, (2) examine the trend in SCA response rates after 1996, when caller identification technology became widespread, and (3) describe the roles played by the various sources of SCA nonresponse over time. The results show that the response rate decline from 1979 to 1996 was larger than described by Curtin, Presser, and Singer (2000); the response rate drop was significantly steeper from 1996 to 2003 than from 1979 to 1996; and the 1979 to 2003 trends differed substantially for refusals and noncontacts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".