MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999688181 · doi:10.3102/10769986027003291

Nonparametric Item Response Function Estimates with the EM Algorithm

2002· article· en· W1999688181 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsMathematicsItem response theoryFunctional data analysisDifferential item functioningAlgorithmLatent variableLatent variable modelSmoothnessStatisticsFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The methods of functional data analysis are used to estimate item response functions (IRFs) nonparametrically. The EM algorithm is used to maximize the penalized marginal likelihood of the data. The penalty controls the smoothness of the estimated IRFs, and is chosen so that, as the penalty is increased, the estimates converge to shapes closely represented by the three-parameter logistic family. The one-dimensional latent trait model is recast as a problem of estimating a space curve or manifold, and, expressed in this way, the model no longer involves any latent constructs, and is invariant with respect to choice of latent variable. Some results from differential geometry are used to develop a data-anchored measure of ability and a new technique for assessing item discriminability. Functional data-analytic techniques are used to explore the functional variation in the estimated IRFs. Applications involving simulated and actual data are included.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.288 · 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