MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361299184 · doi:10.4337/9781800376175

How to Design, Implement, and Analyse a Survey

2023· book· en· W4361299184 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2023
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMaastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, United Nations UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsLicenseDownloadSurvey researchComputer scienceProcess (computing)BusinessMarketingEngineering managementPublic relationsProcess managementWorld Wide WebEngineeringPolitical scienceBusiness administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This insightful book examines all aspects of the design process and implementation of questionnaire surveys on the activities of business, public sector, and non-profit organizations. Anthony Arundel discusses how different aspects of the survey method and planned statistical analysis can constrain question design, and how these issues can be effectively resolved.

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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.071 · 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