COMPARISONS OF CONCLUSIONS FROM IDENTICAL QUESTIONS IN FIVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SURVEY: EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT BETWEEN-SURVEY INCONSISTENCIES FROM CHINA AND VIETNAM
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
This study compares the conclusions from responses to the same five questions asked in five types of widely used economic surveys, each in the way normally carried out, and each with their commonly attendant respondents. Although the results can be expected to vary because of differing respondent characteristics — student versus non-students, for example — the different surveys are commonly assumed to reach similar conclusions. However, in approximately 50% of the pair-wise comparisons between surveys, the conclusions indicated by the responses to one survey were significantly different from the conclusions based on those from another survey. There was little in the results to indicate any clear hierarchy of relative superiority among the five kinds of surveys.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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