BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Maarten Marsman

Maarten Marsman contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsstat.OT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Combine Statistical Thinking With Open Scientific Practice: A Protocol of a Bayesian Research Project

Current developments in the statistics community suggest that modern statistics education should be structured holistically, that is, by allowing students to work with real data and to answer concrete statistical questions, but also by educating them about alternative frameworks, such as Bayesian inference. In this article, we describe how we incorporated such a holistic structure in a Bayesian research project on ordered binomial probabilities. The project was conducted with a group of three undergraduate psychology students who had basic knowledge of Bayesian statistics and programming, but lacked formal mathematical training. The research project aimed to (1) convey the basic mathematical concepts of Bayesian inference; (2) have students experience the entire empirical cycle including collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and (3) teach students open science practices.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Interpreting the Ising Model: The Input Matters

The Ising model is a model for pairwise interactions between binary variables that has become popular in the psychological sciences. It has been first introduced as a theoretical model for the alignment between positive (+1) and negative (-1) atom spins. In many psychological applications, however, the Ising model is defined on the domain $\{0,1\}$ instead of the classical domain $\{-1,1\}$. While it is possible to transform the parameters of a given Ising model in one domain to obtain a statistically equivalent model in the other domain, the parameters in the two versions of the Ising model lend themselves to different interpretations and imply different dynamics, when studying the Ising model as a dynamical system. In this tutorial paper, we provide an accessible discussion of the interpretation of threshold and interaction parameters in the two domains and show how the dynamics of the Ising model depends on the choice of domain. Finally, we provide a transformation that allows to transform the parameters in an Ising model in one domain into a statistically equivalent Ising model in the other domain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Relations between networks, regression, partial correlation, and latent variable model

The Gaussian graphical model (GGM) has become a popular tool for analyzing networks of psychological variables. In a recent paper in this journal, Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger (FWMK) voiced the concern that GGMs that are estimated from partial correlations wrongfully remove the variance that is shared by its constituents. If true, this concern has grave consequences for the application of GGMs. Indeed, if partial correlations only capture the unique covariances, then the data that come from a unidimensional latent variable model ULVM should be associated with an empty network (no edges), as there are no unique covariances in a ULVM. We know that this cannot be true, which suggests that FWMK are missing something with their claim. We introduce a connection between the ULVM and the GGM and use that connection to prove that we find a fully-connected and not an empty network associated with a ULVM. We then use the relation between GGMs and linear regression to show that the partial correlation indeed does not remove the common variance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Reliability of decisions based on tests: Fourier analysis of Boolean decision functions

Items in a test are often used as a basis for making decisions and such tests are therefore required to have good psychometric properties, like unidimensionality. In many cases the sum score is used in combination with a threshold to decide between pass or fail, for instance. Here we consider whether such a decision function is appropriate, without a latent variable model, and which properties of a decision function are desirable. We consider reliability (stability) of the decision function, i.e., does the decision change upon perturbations, or changes in a fraction of the outcomes of the items (measurement error). We are concerned with questions of whether the sum score is the best way to aggregate the items, and if so why. We use ideas from test theory, social choice theory, graphical models, computer science and probability theory to answer these questions. We conclude that a weighted sum score has desirable properties that (i) fit with test theory and is observable (similar to a condition like conditional association), (ii) has the property that a decision is stable (reliable), and (iii) satisfies Rousseau's criterion that the input should match the decision. We use Fourier analysis of Boolean functions to investigate whether a decision function is stable and to figure out which (set of) items has proportionally too large an influence on the decision. To apply these techniques we invoke ideas from graphical models and use a pseudo-likelihood factorisation of the probability distribution.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access