MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review and evaluation of the use of longitudinal approaches in business surveys

2019· article· en· W2921534554 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLongitudinal and Life Course Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Longitudinal dataInterpretation (philosophy)Sample (material)Longitudinal studySample size determinationBusiness development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business surveys are not generally considered to be longitudinal by design. However, the largest businesses are almost always included in each wave of recurrent surveys because they are essential for producing good estimates; and short-period business surveys frequently make use of rotating panel designs to improve the estimates of change by inducing sample overlaps between different periods. These design features mean that business surveys share some methodological challenges with longitudinal surveys. We review the longitudinal methods and approaches that can be used to improve the design and operation of business surveys, giving examples of their use. We also look in the other direction, considering the aspects of longitudinal analysis that have the potential to improve the accuracy, relevance and interpretation of business survey outputs.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.672
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLongitudinal and Life Course StudiesSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207