MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755208167 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v6n6p35

Can Variances of Latent Variables be Scaled in Such a Way That They Correspond to Eigenvalues?

2017· article· en· W2755208167 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsLatent variableStatisticsVariance (accounting)Factor analysisScalingExploratory factor analysisComputationSet (abstract data type)Confirmatory factor analysisFactor (programming language)Variable (mathematics)Applied mathematicsLatent variable modelEconometricsMathematical analysisAlgorithmStructural equation modelingComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper reports an investigation of whether sums of squared factor loadings obtained in confirmatory factor analysis correspond to eigenvalues of exploratory factor analysis. The sum of squared factor loadings reflects the variance of the corresponding latent variable if the variance parameter of the confirmatory factor model is set equal to one. Hence, the computation of the sum implies a specific type of scaling of the variance. While the investigation of the theoretical foundations suggested the expected correspondence between sums of squared factor loadings and eigenvalues, the necessity of procedural specifications in the application, as for example the estimation method, revealed external influences on the outcome. A simulation study was conducted that demonstrated the possibility of exact correspondence if the same estimation method was applied. However, in the majority of realized specifications the estimates showed similar sizes but no correspondence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.286 · 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