MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388442618 · doi:10.1002/sta4.630

Mediation analysis with latent factors using simultaneous group‐wise and parameter‐wise penalization

2023· article· en· W4388442618 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

VenueStat · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent variableMediationLatent variable modelStructural equation modelingSet (abstract data type)Multivariate statisticsDimension (graph theory)Outcome (game theory)Variable (mathematics)Feature selectionLatent class modelComputer scienceEconometricsStatisticsData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mediation analysis aims to uncover the underlying mechanism of how an exposure variable affects the outcome of interest through one or more than one mediating variables. In the event that the number of candidate mediators is large, variable selection or dimension reduction techniques are often utilized to reduce the dimension of the initial set of mediators. In this paper, we propose a latent variable approach using sparse factor analysis with both group‐wise and parameter‐wise penalization to remove irrelevant candidate mediators and estimate the latent factors simultaneously. After the low‐dimensional latent mediating factors are obtained, the direct and indirect effects can be estimated and tested from a multivariate mediation model. To demonstrate the practical applications of the proposed methodology, we apply it to a weight behaviour dataset and an environmental dataset, separately.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.239 · 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