Mixture multilevel vector-autoregressive modeling.
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
With the rising popularity of intensive longitudinal research, the modeling techniques for such data are increasingly focused on individual differences. Here we present mixture multilevel vector-autoregressive modeling, which extends multilevel vector-autoregressive modeling by including a mixture, to identify individuals with similar traits and dynamic processes. This exploratory model identifies mixture components, where each component refers to individuals with similarities in means (expressing traits), autoregressions, and cross-regressions (expressing dynamics), while allowing for some interindividual differences in these attributes. Key issues in modeling are discussed, where the issue of centering predictors is examined in a small simulation study. The proposed model is validated in a simulation study and used to analyze the affective data from the COGITO study. These data consist of samples for two different age groups of over 100 individuals each who were measured for about 100 days. We demonstrate the advantage of exploratory identifying mixture components by analyzing these heterogeneous samples jointly. The model identifies three distinct components, and we provide an interpretation for each component motivated by developmental psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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