MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412164283 · doi:10.1109/wsese66602.2025.00017

Methodological and Practical Challenges in Longitudinal, Large-Scale, Collaborative Questionnaire Survey Research

2025· article· en· W4412164283 on OpenAlexaff
Miikka Kuutila, Paul Ralph

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Computer scienceData scienceSurvey researchManagement sciencePsychologyApplied psychologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an experience report on the de-sign and deployment of a large-scale, longitudinal questionnaire survey aimed at understanding the factors influencing voluntary job turnover among software professionals. Rather than the specific topic of the study, this paper discusses the main challenges encountered, including the complexities of longitudinal survey design, issues raised by large-scale collaboration, ensuring par-ticipant diversity, measuring industry-specific factors for which good scales do not exist, and managing uncertainties in data collection. By discussing these challenges and our strategies in addressing them, this work aims to encourage large-scale survey research in the field of software engineering, and to provide practically useful advice for implementing such projects.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.747
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.099 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207