MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035434565 · doi:10.1177/01466216010251006

The Extra-Factor Phenomenon Revisited: Unidimensional Unfolding as Quadratic Factor Analysis

2001· article· en· W2035434565 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

VenueApplied Psychological Measurement · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhenomenonFactor (programming language)CovarianceQuadratic equationMetric (unit)Factor analysisMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Applied mathematicsStatisticsComputer sciencePhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of linear factor analysis to a set of unfoldable (unidimensional) items produces a two-dimensional solution, called the extra-factor phenomenon, which potentially results in incorrect conclusions about the nature of a set of items (van Schuur& Kiers, 1994). Many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon. This study attempted further clarification within the general theory of factor analysis. Specifically, it was demonstrated that the extra-factor phenomenon arises because: (1) the metric unidimensional unfolding model is equivalent to the unidimensional quadratic factor model; and (2) at the level of covariance structure, the unidimensional quadratic factor model is not distinguishable from the two-dimensional linear factor model (McDonald, 1967). Also discussed are a number of theoretical linkages and bases of distinguishability that exist between unidimensional unfolding and linear factor analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.194 · 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