This is directional downwards selection, not relaxed balancing selection.
Journal 1: Get 4 reviewers instead of customary 2-3 ('naughty topic'). Rejected. Journal 2: This paper belongs to Journal 1, submit there. Rejected. Seems legit.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, this was a dysgenics paper with MCV + item data that fixed (most of) the issues raised by
@JelteWicherts. -
Fascinating. I would read it. I read
@JelteWicherts's paper on the topic. -
I'll have it sent to you. But TL;DR version is that item-level MCV analyses requires a few corrections to the method used for test-level data, and if one doesn't apply these, one gets uninterpretable results depending on relationship between difficulty and loading.
-
We applied the corrections as a test case to a large vocabulary dataset (75 items) with fertility data. Found that the usual results hold: selection appears to be on general factor variance.
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.