Sparse Data Reconstruction, Missing Value and Multiple Imputation through Matrix Factorization
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social science approaches to missing values predict avoided, unrequested, or lost information from dense data sets, typically surveys. The authors propose a matrix factorization approach to missing data imputation that (1) identifies underlying factors to model similarities across respondents and responses and (2) regularizes across factors to reduce their overinfluence for optimal data reconstruction. This approach may enable social scientists to draw new conclusions from sparse data sets with a large number of features, for example, historical or archival sources, online surveys with high attrition rates, or data sets created from Web scraping, which confound traditional imputation techniques. The authors introduce matrix factorization techniques and detail their probabilistic interpretation, and they demonstrate these techniques’ consistency with Rubin’s multiple imputation framework. The authors show via simulations using artificial data and data from real-world subsets of the General Social Survey and National Longitudinal Study of Youth cases for which matrix factorization techniques may be preferred. These findings recommend the use of matrix factorization for data reconstruction in several settings, particularly when data are Boolean and categorical and when large proportions of the data are missing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it