MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579971484 · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2283-4

How to reduce the number of rating scale items without predictability loss?

2017· article· en· W2579971484 on OpenAlexaff
Waldemar W. Koczkodaj, Tamar Kakiashvili, Agnieszka Szymańska, Jesús Montero‐Marín, Ricardo Araya, Javier García‐Campayo, Krzysztof Rutkowski, Dominik Strzałka

Bibliographic record

VenueScientometrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersEuropean Social Fund
KeywordsPredictabilityRating scaleReceiver operating characteristicStatisticsScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)Confirmatory factor analysisComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rating scales are used to elicit data about qualitative entities (e.g., research collaboration). This study presents an innovative method for reducing the number of rating scale items without the predictability loss. The "area under the receiver operator curve method" (AUC ROC) is used. The presented method has reduced the number of rating scale items (variables) to 28.57% (from 21 to 6) making over 70% of collected data unnecessary. Results have been verified by two methods of analysis: Graded Response Model (GRM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). GRM revealed that the new method differentiates observations of high and middle scores. CFA proved that the reliability of the rating scale has not deteriorated by the scale item reduction. Both statistical analysis evidenced usefulness of the AUC ROC reduction method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.500
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.035 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientometricsSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207