MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166210814 · doi:10.1177/0894439307297606

Compensating for Low Topic Interest and Long Surveys

2007· article· en· W2166210814 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

VenueSocial Science Computer Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftTechnische Universität Chemnitz
KeywordsLotteryIncentiveAffect (linguistics)Salience (neuroscience)Survey data collectionPsychologySocial psychologyWeb surveySurvey researchNon-response biasApplied psychologyMarketingEconometricsBusinessCognitive psychologyEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Certain survey characteristics proven to affect response rates, such as a survey's length and topic, are often under limited control of the researcher. Therefore, survey researchers sometimes seek to compensate for such undesired effects on response rates by employing countermeasures such as material or nonmaterial incentives. The scarce evidence on those factors' effects in web survey contexts is far from being conclusive. This study is aimed at filling this gap by examining the effects of four factors along with selected interactions presumed to affect response rates in web surveys. Requests to complete a web-based, self-administered survey were sent to 2,152 owners of personal websites. The 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 fully crossed factorial design encompassed the experimental conditions of (a) high versus low topic salience, (b) short versus long survey, (c) lottery incentive versus no incentive, and (d) no feedback and general feedback (study results) versus personal feedback (individual profile of results). As expected, highly salient and shorter surveys yielded considerably higher unit-response rates. Moreover, partial support was found for interaction hypotheses derived from the leverage-salience theory of survey participation. Offering personalized feedback compensated for the negative effects of low topic salience on response rates. Also, the lottery incentive tended to evoke more responses only if the survey was short (versus long), but this interaction effect was only marginally significant. The results stress the usefulness of a multifactorial approach encompassing interaction effects to understand participation differences in web surveys.

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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.149 · 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