Investigating Confidence Intervals of Item Parameters When Some Item Parameters Take Priors in the 2PL and 3PL Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To reduce the chance of Heywood cases or nonconvergence in estimating the 2PL or the 3PL model in the marginal maximum likelihood with the expectation-maximization (MML-EM) estimation method, priors for the item slope parameter in the 2PL model or for the pseudo-guessing parameter in the 3PL model can be used and the marginal maximum a posteriori (MMAP) and posterior standard error (PSE) are estimated. Confidence intervals (CIs) for these parameters and other parameters which did not take any priors were investigated with popular prior distributions, different error covariance estimation methods, test lengths, and sample sizes. A seemingly paradoxical result was that, when priors were taken, the conditions of the error covariance estimation methods known to be better in the literature (Louis or Oakes method in this study) did not yield the best results for the CI performance, while the conditions of the cross-product method for the error covariance estimation which has the tendency of upward bias in estimating the standard errors exhibited better CI performance. Other important findings for the CI performance are also discussed.
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 | 0.110 | 0.489 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".