MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726268013

Trip Reporting and GPS-based Prompted Recall: Survey Design and Preliminary Analysis of Results

2010· dissertation· en· W2726268013 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Research Studies Overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemRecallPsychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologyData scienceCognitive psychologyTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This trip reporting and GPS-based prompted-recall travel survey was undertaken to provide a better understanding of (a) demographic and behavioural differences between students with a home telephone land line and students without one (b) effects of carrying a GPS device on trip reporting (c) differences in trips reported and confirmed through a prompted-recall survey, and (d) performance of the TRIPS platform. The survey was designed and conducted at the University of Toronto between November 2008 and April 2009. It targeted mostly university students and returned 90 valid interviews. Participants were required to carry a GPS device with them for the two days surveyed. They were then asked to report their trips first, and then to confirm their recorded trips through the web-based prompted-recall tool, TRIPS. Preliminary analysis was conducted based on the reported data, and improvements to the TRIPS platform have been suggested.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.280 · 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