MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W115958420

Comparing Out-of-Sample Predictive Ability of PLS, Covariance, and Regression Models

2014· article· en· W115958420 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

VenueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartial least squares regressionCovarianceStructural equation modelingRegressionRegression analysisComputer scienceSample (material)Predictive modellingAnalysis of covarianceRange (aeronautics)EconometricsStatisticsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial Least Squares Path Modelling (PLSPM) is a popular technique for estimating structural equation models in the social sciences, and is frequently presented as an alternative to covariance-based analysis as being especially suited for predictive modeling. While existing research on PLSPM has focused on its use in causal-explanatory modeling, this paper follows two recent papers at ICIS 2012 and 2013 in examining how PLSPM performs when used for predictive purposes. Additionally, as a predictive technique, we compare PLSPM to traditional regression methods that are widely used for predictive modelling in other disciplines. Specifically, we employ out-of-sample k-fold cross-validation to compare PLSPM to covariance-SEM and a range of a-theoretical regression techniques in a simulation study. Our results show that PLSPM offers advantages over covariance-SEM and other prediction methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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