Analysing Three-way Profile Data Using the Parafac and Tucker3 Models Illustrated with Views on Parenting
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
In this paper two major models for three-way profile data, i.e., the Parafac model and the Tucker3 model are discussed from the point of view of application. Topics treated are handling the data before analysis, model choice, choice of dimensionality, model fit, algorithmic hazards during the analyses, and interpretation and validation of the results. These issues are discussed in some detail so that prospective users can take guidance for analysing their own data. The data provided by Japanese girls and their parents about the parenting style in their family are the major vehicle for demonstrating the issues touched upon. The general results from these data are that parental styles consisted of three groups of behaviours: Acceptance, Control and Rejection, and Discipline. Within families the parenting behaviours of fathers and mothers are seen as parallel rather than at cross purposes, both by the daughters and the parents themselves. Moreover, daughters and parents largely agree about the parenting style itself. Notwithstanding, there are also families in which daughters and parents disagreeabout the parenting style in particular about Acceptance and Control, but not about Discipline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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