MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466832178 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.234923

Does Using a Personalized Pre-Survey Letter Improve the Response Rate for the June Agricultural Survey in Louisiana?

2010· preprint· en· W2466832178 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael W. Gerling, HoaiNam N. Tran, Sammye Crawford, Darcy Miller, T. P. O'Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Agricultural Statistics ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAgricultureQuarter (Canadian coin)Field surveySurvey data collectionAgricultural economicsLivestockGeographyService (business)BusinessSocioeconomicsEconomicsMarketingStatisticsForestryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys farmers and ranchers across the United States and Puerto Rico in order to estimate crops and livestock, assess production practices, and identify economic trends. One of the surveys NASS conducts is the Agricultural Survey, conducted four times a year, (March, June, September and December). June is the base quarter of the survey, and it is the focus of this study. In recent years, NASS’ Louisiana Field Office has used personalized pre-survey letters in an effort to increase the response rate. However, this process is very labor intensive compared to mailing a generic pre-survey letter. Given increasing workloads, the Louisiana Field Office sought to determine whether the practice provided positive return for the time expenditure. This study examines whether personalized pre-survey letters result in a higher survey response rate compared to using generic pre-survey letters.

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)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207