MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037948952 · doi:10.1080/00273171.2010.532361

Selection Between Linear Factor Models and Latent Profile Models Using Conditional Covariances

2010· article· en· W2037948952 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

VenueMultivariate Behavioral Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaYork University
KeywordsLatent class modelLatent variable modelLatent variableFactor analysisComputer scienceModel selectionClass (philosophy)MathematicsEconometricsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for selecting between K-dimensional linear factor models and (K + 1)-class latent profile models is proposed. In particular, it is shown that the conditional covariances of observed variables are constant under factor models but nonlinear functions of the conditioning variable under latent profile models. The performance of a convenient inferential method suggested by the main result is examined via data simulation and is shown to have acceptable error rate control when deciding between the 2 types of models. The proposed test is illustrated using examples from vocational assessment and developmental psychology.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.476
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.040 · 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