MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015368926 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1556670300

Using SPSS to Analyze Complex Survey Data: A Primer

2020· article· en· W3015368926 on OpenAlexaff
Danjie Zou, Jennifer E. V. Lloyd, Jennifer Baumbusch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvey data collectionCluster analysisComputer scienceSyntaxData miningSurvey researchStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An introduction to using SPSS to analyze complex survey data is given. Key features of complex survey design are described briefly, including stratification, clustering, multiple stages, and weights. Then, annotated SPSS syntax for complex survey data analysis is presented to demonstrate the step-by-step process using real complex samples data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.010

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 head0.770
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.157 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations95
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical MethodsSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207