MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013652217 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2012.698773

Bayesian Analysis of Ordinal Survey Data Using the Dirichlet Process to Account for Respondent Personality Traits

2013· article· en· W2013652217 on OpenAlexaff
Saman Muthukumarana, Tim B. Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdinal dataRespondentDirichlet distributionStatisticsLatent variableBayesian probabilityGoodness of fitEconometricsComputer scienceMultivariate statisticsDirichlet processOrdinal regressionSurvey data collectionMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a Bayesian latent variable model used to analyze ordinal response survey data by taking into account the characteristics of respondents. The ordinal response data are viewed as multivariate responses arising from continuous latent variables with known cut-points. Each respondent is characterized by two parameters that have a Dirichlet process as their joint prior distribution. The proposed mechanism adjusts for classes of personalities. The model is applied to student survey data in course evaluations. Goodness-of-fit (GoF) procedures are developed for assessing the validity of the model. The proposed GoF procedures are simple, intuitive, and do not seem to be a part of current Bayesian practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207