MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187053540

Non-response in a Random Digit Dialling Survey: The Experience of the General Social Survey's Cycle 21 (2007)

2008· article· en· W2187053540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isabelle Marchand, Ryan Chepita, Patrick St-Cyr, Kuawa Williams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelephone surveyPopulationGeneral Social SurveySample (material)Telephone numberSurvey samplingQuarter (Canadian coin)Numerical digitPsychologySurvey data collectionDemographyGeographyComputer scienceStatisticsSocial psychologyMarketingMathematicsBusinessSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing difficulty of reaching respondents has a general impact on non-response in telephone surveys, especially those that use random digit dialling (RDD), such as the General Social Survey (GSS). The GSS is an annual multipurpose survey with 25,000 respondents. Its aim is to monitor the characteristics of and major changes in Canada’s social structure. GSS Cycle 21 (2007) was about the family, social support and retirement. Its target population consisted of persons aged 45 and over living in the 10 Canadian provinces. For more effective coverage, part of the sample was taken from a followup with the respondents of GSS Cycle 20 (2006), which was on family transitions. The remainder was a new RDD sample. In this paper, we describe the survey’s sampling plan and the random digit dialling method used. Then we discuss the challenges of calculating the non-response rate in an RDD survey that targets a subset of a population, for which the inscope population must be estimated or modelled. This is done primarily through the use of paradata. The methodology used in GSS Cycle 21 is presented in detail.

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 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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.202 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207