Approaches for Structural Investigations of Binary Data Using Confirmatory Factor Models
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
An investigation of the suitability of threshold-based and threshold-free approaches for structural investigations of binary data is reported. Both approaches implicitly establish a relationship between binary data following the binomial distribution on one hand and continuous random variables assuming a normal distribution on the other hand. In two simulation studies we investigated: whether the fit results confirm the establishment of such a relationship, whether the differences between correct and incorrect models are retained and to what degree the sample size influences the results. Both approaches proved to establish the relationship. Using the threshold-free approach it was achieved by customary ML estimation whereas robust ML estimation was necessary in the threshold-based approach. Discrimination between correct and incorrect models was observed for both approaches. Larger CFI differences were found for the threshold-free approach than for the threshold-based approach. Dependency on sample size characterized the threshold-based approach but not the threshold-free approach. The threshold-based approach tended to perform better in large sample sizes, while the threshold-free approach performed better in smaller sample sizes.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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