MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411835771 · doi:10.1017/psy.2025.10016

Item Response Models for Rating Relational Data

2025· article· en· W4411835771 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

VenuePsychometrika · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsComputer scienceMarkov chain Monte CarloCluster analysisData miningCurse of dimensionalityItem response theoryBayesian probabilityMarkov chainRelational modelBayesian networkRelational databaseMachine learningEconometricsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces item response models for rating relational data. The relational data are obtained via ratings of senders and receivers in a directed network. The proposed models allow comparisons of senders and receivers on a one-dimensional latent scale while accounting for unobserved homophilic relationships. We show that the approach effectively captures reciprocity and clustering phenomena in the relational data. We estimate model parameters using a Bayesian specification and utilize Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to approximate the full conditional posterior distributions. Simulation studies demonstrate that model parameters can be recovered satisfactorily even when the dimensionality of the network is small. We also present an extensive empirical application to illustrate the usefulness of the proposed models for complete and incomplete networks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.138 · 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