The Effect Of Interviewer Attitude on Survey Cooperation
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
Research to improve the quality of social surveys has shown that methodological factors have a significant impact on respondent cooperation. The research presented here is inspired by the sociology of work and studies the impact of interviewers' sense of motivation and “self-efficacy” in convincing respondents to answer surveys. To do so, a survey of interviewers working for three private pollsters was conducted during the Canadian federal election campaign of November 2000. The results indicate some evidence of relationships between motivation, sense of self-efficacy (and associated behaviour), and interviewer performance. However, some of the results could be better explained by differences in training. In addition, the lack of a better measure of performance may also explain the weakness of the results. Future studies should examine performance measurement and try take into account how performance changes over time. Surveys, Interviewers, Interviewer Performance, Interviewer Attitudes, Measurement of Interviewer Performance.
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 | 0.337 | 0.567 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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