MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297361061 · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2022.100100

Multiblock discriminant correspondence analysis: Exploring group differences with structured categorical data

2022· article· en· W4297361061 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

VenueMethods in Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCity University of New York
KeywordsCategorical variableCorrespondence analysisLinear discriminant analysisPsychologyGroup (periodic table)InferenceTypologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNatural language processingCognitive psychologyMathematicsMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychological research often involves complex datasets that cannot easily be analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Multiblock Discriminant Correspondence Analysis (multiblock dica, also called mudica) examines group differences in large, structured categorical datasets and identifies blocks of variables that contribute to these differences. Data for this illustration were obtained from a study on mental health literacy (N = 648) that included 33 questions that were arranged into four blocks: etiology, symptoms, treatment, and general knowledge of psychological disorders. With non-parametric inference tests and results displayed as intuitive maps, mudica revealed differences in performance across groups not readily detectable using standard methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.345
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.108 · 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