MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089004370 · doi:10.1080/00273171.2014.911075

Assessing Approximate Fit in Categorical Data Analysis

2014· article· en· W2089004370 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultivariate Behavioral Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsCategorical variableGoodness of fitBivariate analysisStatisticOrdinal dataMean squared errorMultivariate statisticsItem response theoryCutoffEconometricsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A family of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) statistics is proposed for assessing the goodness of approximation in discrete multivariate analysis with applications to item response theory (IRT) models. The family includes RMSEAs to assess the approximation up to any level of association of the discrete variables. Two members of this family are RMSEA2, which uses up to bivariate moments, and the full information RMSEAn. The RMSEA2 is estimated using the M2 statistic of Maydeu-Olivares and Joe (2005, 2006), whereas for maximum likelihood estimation, RMSEAn is estimated using Pearson's X(2) statistic. Using IRT models, we provide cutoff criteria of adequate, good, and excellent fit using the RMSEA2. When the data are ordinal, we find a strong linear relationship between the RMSEA2 and the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual goodness-of-fit index. We are unable to offer cutoff criteria for the RMSEAn as its population values decrease as the number of variables and categories increase.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.018
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
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 head0.959
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.241 · 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