MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595860368 · doi:10.1111/jedm.12072

Extended Mixed‐Effects Item Response Models With the MH‐RM Algorithm

2015· article· en· W1595860368 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Measurement · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsItem response theoryRandom effects modelCurse of dimensionalityRasch modelMixed modelMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsMonte Carlo methodLinear regressionGeneralized linear mixed modelComputer scienceEconometricsPsychometricsMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mixed‐effects item response theory (IRT) model is presented as a logical extension of the generalized linear mixed‐effects modeling approach to formulating explanatory IRT models. Fixed and random coefficients in the extended model are estimated using a Metropolis‐Hastings Robbins‐Monro (MH‐RM) stochastic imputation algorithm to accommodate for increased dimensionality due to modeling multiple design‐ and trait‐based random effects. As a consequence of using this algorithm, more flexible explanatory IRT models, such as the multidimensional four‐parameter logistic model, are easily organized and efficiently estimated for unidimensional and multidimensional tests. Rasch versions of the linear latent trait and latent regression model, along with their extensions, are presented and discussed, Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to determine the efficiency of parameter recovery of the MH‐RM algorithm, and an empirical example using the extended mixed‐effects IRT model is presented.

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 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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.142 · 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