MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406042004 · doi:10.1017/psy.2024.13

Mediation Analysis in Bayesian Extended Redundancy Analysis with Mixed Outcome Variables

2025· article· en· W4406042004 on OpenAlexaff
Ji Yeh Choi, Minjung Kyung, Ju‐Hyun Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychometrika · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsBayesian probabilityOutcome (game theory)MediationPsychologyStatisticsEconometricsBayesian statisticsPsychometricsComputer scienceClinical psychologyMathematicsBayesian inferenceMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extended redundancy analysis (ERA) is a statistical approach to component-based multivariate regression modeling that explores interrelationships among multiple sets of while incorporating regression with a data-reduction technique. The extant models that utilize ERA have assumed the outcome variables with the same data type. Also, ERA models focused on estimating direct pathways only without explicitly addressing mediation effects. In this paper, ERA is extended to handle multiple mediators and mixed types of outcome variables by adopting a Bayesian framework, taking into account correlation structure among all of the outcome variables. The proposed method develops an algorithm that derives the joint posterior distribution of parameters using a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Simulations and an empirical dataset are provided to illustrate the usefulness of the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychometrikaSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207