MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096084636

Web site Buy online

2008· article· en· W7096084636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetSurpriseRepresentativeness heuristicSocial connectednessElectronic businessWeb siteField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of web technologies and electronic mail has been an important development in the field of marketing and opinion research. These new widespread methods of communications have opened up potential avenues and approaches to survey-based research. Quite appropriately, however, these methods have also come under scrutiny, as any new approach should, for their representativeness and influence on data quality. There should be no surprise why electronic surveying is becoming hugely popular among researchers—the public’s connectedness has exploded in recent years. Approximately 50 per cent of households are now connected in some way to the Internet [Statistics Canada: 2000]. Similarly, CFIB’s own research shows that connections among its small and mediumsized business members have leapt from less than 20 per cent in early 1996 to its current level at around 70 per cent. And, among those using the Internet, email is by far the ‘killer ’ application (see Figure 1).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.094 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207