MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758319537 · doi:10.1177/0013164417719111

Recommendations on the Sample Sizes for Multilevel Latent Class Models

2017· article· en· W2758319537 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent class modelSample size determinationStatisticsSample (material)Rule of thumbNested set modelComputer scienceModel selectionEconometricsData miningMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multilevel latent class model (MLCM) is a useful tool for analyzing data arising from hierarchically nested structures. One important issue for MLCMs is determining the minimum sample sizes needed to obtain reliable and unbiased results. In this simulation study, the sample sizes required for MLCMs were investigated under various conditions. A series of design factors, including sample sizes at two levels, the distinctness and the complexity of the latent structure, and the number of indicators were manipulated. The results revealed that larger samples are required when the latent classes are less distinct and more complex with fewer indicators. This study also provides recommendations about the minimum required sample sizes that satisfied all four criteria-model selection accuracy, parameter estimation bias, standard error bias, and coverage rate-as well as rules of thumb for sample size requirements when applying MLCMs in data analysis.

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)0.000
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 score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.466
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.055 · 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