Avoiding and Correcting Bias in Score-Based Latent Variable Regression With Discrete Manifest Items
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
This article considers models involving a single structural equation with latent explanatory and/or latent dependent variables where discrete items are used to measure the latent variables. Our primary focus is the use of scores as proxies for the latent variables and carrying out ordinary least squares (OLS) regression on such scores to estimate parameters in the structural equation. We are concerned with the bias in these OLS estimates; we present two approaches to deal with this bias. Extending the work of Skrondal and Laake (2001) Skrondal, A. and Laake, P. 2001. Regression among factor scores. Psychometrika, 66: 563–576. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] on continuous items, we derive sufficient conditions under which the use of scores based on item response theory leads to unbiased OLS estimates at the population level; we deem this approach “bias avoiding.” We also consider Croon's (2002) Croon, M. 2002. “Using predicted latent scores in general latent structure models”. In Latent variable and latent structure models, Edited by: Marcoulides, G. A. and Moustaki, I. 195–223. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar] bias correction methodology for continuous items and explore its efficacy on discrete items; we deem this approach “bias correcting.” We illustrate the performance of the 2 approaches through numerical examples of large simulated data sets.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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