Concurrently Assessing Survey Mode and Sample Size in Off-Site Angler Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Off-site angler surveys are commonly administered via two or more survey modes in the form of a mixed-mode survey. Mixed-mode surveys allow survey administrators to attain the benefits inherent to different survey modes, reduce total survey error, and control survey cost. However, these benefits can only be simultaneously attained after undertaking sample size planning. Sample size planning is a trade-off analysis wherein a researcher concurrently assesses survey administration cost, the accuracy and precision of estimates, the magnitude and direction of biases, and variance of the test statistic to determine an optimal sample size. We used data from an off-site angler survey administered to anglers targeting White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus to illustrate a systematic approach to sample size planning. Our survey design included a mixed-mode design with three survey modes (e-mail, mail, and telephone) and a two-phase sampling design that had a first contact and a follow-up contact with a subsample of nonrespondents. Sample size planning was undertaken in the form of a sensitivity analysis wherein four survey design alternatives were simulated and assessed based on four criteria (i.e., bias, precision, accuracy, and cost). We also incorporated tests for nonresponse bias and survey mode effect. We found that (1) response rates were lower for e-mail surveys (22%) than for mail surveys and telephone surveys (39–44%); (2) nonresponse bias did not have a substantial effect on survey estimates from the mixed-mode design; and (3) estimates (total effort and total catch) from the mail and e-mail survey modes were significantly different, indicating a survey mode effect. The high variability of anglers’ annual catch made survey estimates highly imprecise at lower sample sizes. The level of acceptable error varies for each study. Therefore, a systematic approach to sample size planning is necessary to determine the point where acceptable error is reached while considering multiple survey design alternatives. Received September 25, 2016; accepted April 24, 2017 Published online June 19, 2017
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.170 | 0.297 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".