Comparação de métodos para o controle do viés da aquiescência em escalas balanceadas e desbalanceadas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O controle do viés de aquiescência normalmente envolve a aplicação de itens positivos e negativos. Contudo, pouco se sabe sobre o efeito do balanceamento entre itens positivos e negativos sobre o controle do viés. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar três modelos de Análise Fatorial Confirmatória (sem controle, MIMIC e Intercepto Randômico) para recuperar a estrutura fatorial de instrumentos desbalanceados e balanceados, a partir de dados simulados e reais (procedentes de um instrumento que avalia Personalidade). Mediante o controle da aquiescência, os resultados indicaram que a performance de escalas balanceadas foi melhor do que de escalas desbalanceadas, bem como na ausência de controle desse viés de resposta, ao considerar as escalas balanceadas e desbalanceadas. Dessa maneira, esta pesquisa aponta para a possibilidade de controle de aquiescência por meio de instrumentos balanceados associada ao uso dos métodos estatísticos na modelagem.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".