Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article concerns the problem of respondent’s availability in survey research. \nThis problem is not new and, as such, was broadly discussed in literature. However \nit is still important as the primary condition of survey realisation itself. The researchers are still concerned for response rate decreasing which could make \nthe conclusions drawn from surveys unacceptable. The basis for present analysis \nis data coming from survey conducted in 1998 on the national representative sample. \nThe research was carried out for 12 months and finally researchers gathered \n36000 interviews. SMG/KRC POLAND Media by the order of the three publishers \n(Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita and Super Express) conducted the study. \nThe results show the systematic relationships between the respondents \ncharacteristics and their availability in survey research. The analysis assumed the \nsearching for such features of respondents, which could explain availability of respondents. \nAccording to intuition persons advanced in years, with lower incomes, \nliving in smaller towns are more often available in survey research. I tried also to \ndescribe season phenomenon concerning respondents availability--the \nconclusion can be drawn that there are slightly more chance to conduct the interview with planned respondent in the first quarter of a year and on weekends.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".