MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501970797 · doi:10.1177/0013164415593777

Testing Mediation in Structural Equation Modeling

2015· article· en· W1501970797 on OpenAlex
Craig Leth‐Steensen, Elena Gallitto

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

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBootstrapping (finance)Structural equation modelingMonte Carlo methodLatent variableMediationEconometricsContrast (vision)Statistical hypothesis testingStatisticsComputer scienceLatent variable modelMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large number of approaches have been proposed for estimating and testing the significance of indirect effects in mediation models. In this study, four sets of Monte Carlo simulations involving full latent variable structural equation models were run in order to contrast the effectiveness of the currently popular bias-corrected bootstrapping approach with the simple test of joint significance approach. The results from these simulations demonstrate that the test of joint significance had more power than bias-corrected bootstrapping and also yielded more reasonable Type I errors.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.434
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.031 · 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