MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991473311 · doi:10.1007/s11336-019-09691-4

Multilevel Heterogeneous Factor Analysis and Application to Ecological Momentary Assessment

2019· article· en· W2991473311 on OpenAlexaff
Junhao Pan, Edward H. Ip, Laurette Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychometrika · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDirectorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCovarianceGoodness of fitBayesian probabilityFactor analysisResidualConfirmatory factor analysisCovariance matrixStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsMultilevel modelComputer scienceStructural equation modelingAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ansari et al. (Psychometrika 67:49-77, 2002) applied a multilevel heterogeneous model for confirmatory factor analysis to repeated measurements on individuals. While the mean and factor loadings in this model vary across individuals, its factor structure is invariant. Allowing the individual-level residuals to be correlated is an important means to alleviate the restriction imposed by configural invariance. We relax the diagonality assumption of residual covariance matrix and estimate it using a formal Bayesian Lasso method. The approach improves goodness of fit and avoids ad hoc one-at-a-time manipulation of entries in the covariance matrix via modification indexes. We illustrate the approach using simulation studies and real data from an ecological momentary assessment.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.400 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychometrikaSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207