MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307657387 · doi:10.2501/jar-53-4-363-371

The Interaction of Sampling and Weighting In Producing a Representative Sample Online

2013· article· en· W2307657387 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

VenueJournal of Advertising Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicMarketing and Advertising Strategies
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingSample (material)Variance (accounting)Sampling (signal processing)StatisticsDilemmaEconometricsSampling biasThe InternetSurvey samplingSurvey data collectionSampling designMarketingComputer scienceAdvertisingSample size determinationMathematicsBusinessSociologyTelecommunicationsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the methodology of Internet surveys used in advertising and marketing research. The use of the techniques of weighting, in which different respondents to the survey are assigned unequal values to account for statistical bias in the sampling process through which respondents are chosen, is discussed. A dilemma for researcher is discussed in which although weighted data is more representative than unweighted responses, the use of weighting produces more variance within survey results.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.305 · 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