MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413443516 · doi:10.1093/jrs/feaf052

Magic bullet or questionable remedy? Discussing the use of Meta advertising to recruit hard-to-reach migrants for surveys

2025· article· en· W4413443516 on OpenAlexafffund
Steffen Pötzschke, Howard Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refugee Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMeta
KeywordsMagic bulletMAGIC (telescope)AdvertisingPolitical sciencePsychologyBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the world sees an increase in global migration, it is paramount to collect real-time data on migrants to facilitate their settlement in new countries. A major obstacle to capturing such information is that many migrants, such as refugees, are “hard-to-reach.” Traditional sampling methods often miss small and mobile populations and for this reason new methods are needed. Survey recruitment through Meta advertisements is one such approach. By means of an auto-ethnographic discussion, we offer practical insights into different methodological considerations that researchers must contemplate when using advertisements on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms to sample refugees as hard-to-reach populations. Our exchange focuses on recruitment and response rate issues, ethical considerations, the validity of data shared, and the opaqueness of how ad targeting algorithms work. This is followed by some concluding observations.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.102 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Refugee StudiesSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207