MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159263306 · doi:10.1177/0049124107301944

Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account

2007· article· en· W2159263306 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Methods & Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized responseRespondentLog-linear modelResponse biasItem response theoryStatisticsOutcome (game theory)PsychologySocial psychologyEconometricsResponse timeLinear modelMathematicsComputer sciencePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized response (RR) is an interview technique designed to eliminate response bias when sensitive questions are asked. In RR the answer depends partly on the true status of the respondent and partly on the outcome of a randomizing device. Although RR elicits more honest answers than direct questions do, it is susceptible to self-protective response behavior; that is, the respondent gives an evasive answer irrespective of the outcome of the randomizing device. The authors present a log-linear RR model that accounts for this kind of self-protection (SP). The main results of this SP model are estimates of (1) the probability of SP, (2) the log-linear parameters describing the associations between the sensitive characteristics, and (3) the prevalence of the sensitive characteristics that are corrected for SP. The model is illustrated with two examples from a Dutch survey measuring noncompliance with social welfare rules.

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)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.531
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.089 · 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