Compliance Trends in a 14-Week Ecological Momentary Assessment Study of Undergraduate Alcohol Drinkers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High compliance is a priority for successful ecological momentary assessment (EMA) research, but meta-analyses of between-study differences show that reasons for missed prompts remain unclear. We examined compliance data from a 14-week, 182-survey EMA study of undergraduate alcohol use to test differences over time and across survey types between participants with better and worse compliance rates, and to evaluate the impact of incentives on ongoing participation. Participants were N = 196 students (65.8% female; M age = 20.6). Overall compliance was 76.5%, declining gradually from 88.9% to 70% over 14 weeks. Declines were faster in participants with lower overall compliance, but we found no demographic, personality, mental health, or substance use differences between participants with better versus worse compliance rates. Compliance varied by survey type, and unannounced bonus incentives did not impact compliance rates. Participants completed fewer surveys the week after winning a gift card. We offer recommendations for designing future EMA studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it