Applying Linear Mixed Effects Models with Crossed Random Effects to Psycholinguistic Data: Multilevel Specification and Model Selection.
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
Applying linear mixed effects regression (LMER) models to psycholinguistic data was made popular by However, applied researchers sometimes encounter model specification difficulties when using such models. This article presents a multilevel specification of LMERs customized for typical psycholinguistic studies. The proposed LMER specifications with crossed random effects allow different combinations of random intercept effects or random slope effects to be specified directly for subject and item covariates. As a result, this approach allows researchers to describe, specify, and interpret a wide range of effects in an LMER more easily. Next, the syntax and steps involved in using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS to fit the discussed models are illustrated. Thirdly, various issues relating to model selection, specifically for the random component of LMER models with crossed random effects, are discussed. Finally, this article concludes with remarks about model specification and selection of the random structure in the context of analyzing psycholinguistic data using LMERs specifically. This paper provides readers conducting psycholinguistic research with a complete tutorial on how to select, apply, and interpret the multilevel specification of LMERs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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