Impact of Outliers Arising From Unintended and Unknowingly Included Subpopulations on the Decisions About the Number of Factors in Exploratory Factor Analysis
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
There is a lack of research on the effects of outliers on the decisions about the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis, especially for outliers arising from unintended and unknowingly included subpopulations. The purpose of the present research was to investigate how outliers from an unintended and unknowingly included subpopulation affected the decisions about the number of factors to retain using four commonly used methods separately. The results showed that all the decision methods could provide biased results and the number of factors could be inflated, deflated, or remain the same depending on the decision methods used and outlier conditions. The findings also revealed that symmetric outliers did not affect the three principal component analysis–based methods but affected chi-square (ML) sequential tests. Finally, sample size did not play a role in the effect of outliers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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