Different Roles of Prior Distributions in the Single Mediator Model with Latent Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In manifest variable models, Bayesian methods for mediation analysis can have better statistical properties than commonly used frequentist methods. However, with latent variables, Bayesian mediation analysis with diffuse priors can yield worse statistical properties than frequentist methods, and no study to date has evaluated the impact of informative priors on statistical properties of point and interval summaries of the mediated effect. This article describes the first examination of using fully conjugate and informative (accurate and inaccurate) priors in Bayesian mediation analysis with latent variables. Results suggest that fully conjugate priors and informative priors with the same relative prior sample sizes have notably different effects at N = 200 and 400, than at N = 50 and 100. Consequences of a small amount of inaccuracy in priors for loadings can be alleviated by making the prior less informative, whereas the same is not always true of inaccuracy in priors for structural paths. Finally, the consequences of using informative priors depend on the inferential goals of the analysis: inaccurate priors are more detrimental for accurately estimating the mediated effect than for evaluating whether the mediated effect is nonzero. Recommendations are provided about when to gainfully employ Bayesian mediation analysis with latent variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".