Multi-Level Modeling of Dyadic Data in Sport Sciences: Conceptual, Statistical, and Practical Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this article is to present a series of conceptual, statistical, and practical issues in the modeling of multi-level dyadic data. Distinctions are made between distinguishable and undistinguishable dyads and several types of independent variables modeled at the dyadic level of analysis. Multi-level modeling equations are explained in a non-technical manner. A database of 66 athletes regrouped in 33 undistinguishable dyads is used to illustrate the steps from initial preparation of multi-level databases to the interpretations of output files. The data are used to examine null, intercept-as-outcome, and slope-as-outcome models, as well as to present a formula to calculate percentage of variance explained at different levels of analysis. A simple slopes procedure is showed to probe significant cross-level interactions (slope-as-outcome model) in a manner consistent with the approach generally used in ordinary least square regression. Potential extensions and limitations of this multi-level approach are presented in the discussion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.133 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".