MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303188607 · doi:10.1037/met0000514

Aberrant distortion of variance components in multilevel models under conflation of level-specific effects.

2022· article· en· W4303188607 on OpenAlexaff
Jason D. Rights

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflationVariance (accounting)Random effects modelInferenceMultilevel modelStatisticsEconometricsDistortion (music)Cluster (spacecraft)MathematicsPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMeta-analysisEpistemologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

conflation). The purpose of this article is to elucidate an unappreciated consequence of such fixed or random conflation, namely, that it can cause systematic distortion in all variance components, yielding uninterpretable variances that adversely affect the entire model. In this article, I provide novel mathematical derivations, simulations, and pedagogical illustrations of such variance distortion, showing how it leads to several aberrant consequences: (1) error variances at level-1 and level-2 can systematically increase (in the population) with the addition of predictors; (2) there can be a large apparent degree of between-cluster random-effect variability in cases in which there is actually no between-cluster outcome variability; (3) R-squared measures of explained variance can be severely biased, uninterpretable, and well below the logical bound of 0; and (4) inference for all fixed components of the model-not just the conflated slopes themselves-can be compromised. I conclude with recommendations for practice, including cautionary notes on interpreting results from prior research that had specified conflated slopes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.384
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.574
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.015 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207