Heterogeneous Factor Analysis Models: A Bayesian Approach
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
Multilevel factor analysis models are widely used in the social sciences to account for heterogeneity in mean structures. In this paper we extend previous work on multilevel models to account for general forms of heterogeneity in confirmatory factor analysis models. We specify various models of mean and covariance heterogeneity in confirmatory factor analysis and develop Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedures to perform Bayesian inference, model checking, and model comparison. We test our methodology using synthetic data and data from a consumption emotion study. The results from synthetic data show that our Bayesian model perform well in recovering the true parameters and selecting the appropriate model. More importantly, the results clearly illustrate the consequences of ignoring heterogeneity. Specifically, we find that ignoring heterogeneity can lead to sign reversals of the factor covariances, inflation of factor variances and underappreciation of uncertainty in parameter estimates. The results from the emotion study show that subjects vary both in means and covariances. Thus traditional psychometric methods cannot fully capture the heterogeneity in our data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.001 |
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.
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