MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366759412 · doi:10.1080/10871209.2023.2206169

Actively encouraging online responses to a mixed-mode mail and web survey: a case of nudging anglers in Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4366759412 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Dimensions of Wildlife · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixed modeAdvertisingPopulationPsychologyMarketingBusinessMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little effort has focused on encouraging less costly, online responses within mixed-mode surveys. From an Ontario angler survey, this gap is addressed by applying a nudge (i.e., mail push to web) or control (i.e., providing a print questionnaire and return envelope) for the final mail contact. The nudge increased the share of online responses from the final contact by over 40% while only slightly decreasing (1.3%) the response rate. The nudge most heavily affected senior anglers (65–70 years old) who experienced a 58% increase in online responses but an 11% decrease to the response rate from the final contact. The increased response rate for the control came at a cost of about $25 and $4 (CAD 2021) per additional response for overall and senior anglers, respectively. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the nudge depends on the population being targeted.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.235 · 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