MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maximum Likelihood Item Response Theory Estimation

2014· other· en· W3023909498 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

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum likelihood sequence estimationMaximum likelihoodMarginal likelihoodRestricted maximum likelihoodEstimationEstimation theoryExpectation–maximization algorithmMathematicsStatisticsLikelihood principleMaximum a posteriori estimationLikelihood functionBayes estimatorBayesian probabilityComputer scienceQuasi-maximum likelihoodEconometricsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An overview and short didactic for three common estimation techniques for parameters in item response theory models are described: (a) joint maximum likelihood, (b) conditional maximum likelihood, and (c) marginal maximum likelihood. Specifically, likelihood equations fundamental to all three estimation approaches are presented first and joint as well as conditional maximum likelihood estimation are briefly described next. The main part of the entry focuses on an extended description of marginal maximum likelihood estimation and illustrates, in a step‐by‐step fashion, how it makes use of the EM algorithm and a fully Bayesian estimation framework to estimate item parameters. A brief description of how person parameters are subsequently estimated follows. Finally, a few words on alternative estimation approaches are offered.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.210 · 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