MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278523154 · doi:10.2501/jar-54-2-141-148

Is Mobile a Reliable Platform For Survey Taking?

2014· article· en· W2278523154 on OpenAlexaff
William A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advertising Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingTelecommunicationsAdvertisingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents research on the role of respondents who use mobile computing devices such as smartphones and tablet to participate in Internet surveys in marketing research. The growth in the number of U.S. adults using such devices is contrasted with research indicating those users are less likely to participate in or to finish surveys than are microcomputer users. It is noted that minorities are more likely to use smartphones as their main computer than are non-Hispanic whites. Implications for survey design and methodologies are considered.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.015

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.568
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advertising ResearchSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207