Bibliographic record
Abstract
“If it came in the mail, I wouldn’t have even looked at it”: contact triangulation as a means to increase response rates Deatra Walsh and Doug Ramsey, Brandon University Abstract: Conducting survey research in the social sciences is becoming increasingly difficult as potential respondents are constantly flooded with junk mail and bombarded by telemarketers. If social scientists are to continue using surveys as a research technique, they must be sensitive to these trends and employ modified, comprehensive approaches emphasizing community contact and rapport. This paper explores this contention by examining the effect of ‘contact triangulation ’ on response rates in Benito, a rural agricultural community in Manitoba’s Parkland region. Community contact, an essential aspect of successful research in rural areas, was achieved through presence and visibility in the community, a ‘knock and drop ’ survey technique and the use of local media for research information dissemination. While contact with residents through the knock and drop exercise alone did not appear to impact response rates, overall, the efforts to establish community contact contributed to an acceptable response rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.197 | 0.039 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".