A Review of Research on Coding Methods for Open-ended Text Responses in Survey Questionnaires
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
In fields such as social sciences and market research, open-ended questions can collect richer data information, but how to effectively count and analyse these text answers becomes a key issue. The study mainly explores the three coding methods of open-ended questions in questionnaires, including the definition, process, and application of manual coding, semi-automatic coding, and automatic coding. According to existing literature and data, manual coding has high flexibility and accuracy, but it is inefficient when processing large-scale data; semi-automatic coding combines manual coding and machine learning technology, which can improve efficiency while maintaining a certain degree of accuracy; automatic coding relies on natural language processing technology and deep learning models, which greatly improve coding efficiency, but there is a problem of insufficient accuracy when facing complex semantics. Future research can focus on improving the accuracy of automatic coding through deep learning, developing intelligent semi-automatic systems that reduce manual intervention, and incorporating real-time feedback mechanisms for continuous misappropriation.
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 | 0.089 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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