MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415455943 · doi:10.5840/inquiryct2025101733

Re-thinking the Demographic Survey Response Process

2025· article· W4415455943 on OpenAlexaff
Christina B. Arayata

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsk priceIdentity (music)Process (computing)Adaptation (eye)Survey data collectionSurvey researchSurvey methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is concerned with how undergraduate students in disciplines related to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) select responses when answering demographic surveys, especially in cases where they are unable to map their identity onto provided responses. Fifteen undergraduate STEM students at various stages of their degrees were interviewed, and three types of demographic survey responses were identified: (1) alignment, (2) misreporting, and (3) misalignment. Based on the findings, an adaptation of Tourangeau et al.’s (2000) Components of Survey Response model is proposed. The findings have implications for furthering the understanding of the survey response process, how to ask sensitive questions, and the limitations of racial self-identification questions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.398
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.615
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3980.615
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.391 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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 venueInquiry Critical Thinking Across the DisciplinesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207