Roughly, I'd estimate Ipsos to cost about 40-50% more than Prolific, but this could depend on factors like desired sample size, length of the survey, bundled pricing packages, platform-specific inflation, etc. There may also be a more dramatic difference if nationally representative options are, or are not, selected on Prolific (it's not a default, as far as I'm aware).
I think there are other important methodological issues to consider as well. One is a time trade-off. Ipsos (and other similar quota-based sampling platforms) may require more time (estimating about 2x?) for data collection. This could be problematic, especially for fast-moving fields or topics. Another issue is the unknown presence of additional sampling biases that might be reflected in different online samples. There's an interesting discussion from a Prolific staff researcher on our report and that issue here.
Rather than levying a judgment in favor of one or the other samples, I think it's important to be aware of these sorts of methodological trade-offs and their implications.
There's another communication-focused initiative, Interspecies Internet, to use AI/ML to foster interspecies communication between human and nonhuman animals that seems like it might be relevant here, albeit somewhat different from Project CETI. Interspecies Internet seems to have gained some traction outside of EA and their projects may be of some interest here.
Roughly, I'd estimate Ipsos to cost about 40-50% more than Prolific, but this could depend on factors like desired sample size, length of the survey, bundled pricing packages, platform-specific inflation, etc. There may also be a more dramatic difference if nationally representative options are, or are not, selected on Prolific (it's not a default, as far as I'm aware).
I think there are other important methodological issues to consider as well. One is a time trade-off. Ipsos (and other similar quota-based sampling platforms) may require more time (estimating about 2x?) for data collection. This could be problematic, especially for fast-moving fields or topics. Another issue is the unknown presence of additional sampling biases that might be reflected in different online samples. There's an interesting discussion from a Prolific staff researcher on our report and that issue here.
Rather than levying a judgment in favor of one or the other samples, I think it's important to be aware of these sorts of methodological trade-offs and their implications.
There's another communication-focused initiative, Interspecies Internet, to use AI/ML to foster interspecies communication between human and nonhuman animals that seems like it might be relevant here, albeit somewhat different from Project CETI. Interspecies Internet seems to have gained some traction outside of EA and their projects may be of some interest here.