MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389347402 · doi:10.1111/emip.12585

Digital Module 34: Introduction to Multilevel Measurement Modeling

2023· article· en· W4389347402 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

VenueEducational Measurement Issues and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingMultilevel modelComputer scienceCode (set theory)Latent variableProcess (computing)Data miningSoftware engineeringProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Module Abstract Clustered data structures are common in many areas of educational and psychological research (e.g., students clustered in schools, patients clustered by clinician). In the course of conducting research, questions are often administered to obtain scores reflecting latent constructs. Multilevel measurement models (MLMMs) allow for modeling measurement (the relationship of test items to constructs) and the relationships between variables in a clustered data structure. Modeling the two concurrently is important for accurately representing the relationships between items and constructs, and between constructs and other constructs/variables. The barrier to entry with MLMMs can be high, with many equations and less‐documented software functionality. This module reviews two different frameworks for multilevel measurement modeling: (1) multilevel modeling and (2) structural equation modeling. We demonstrate the entire process in R with working code and available data, from preparing the dataset, through writing and running code, to interpreting and comparing output for the two approaches.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.147 · 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