MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964275428 · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.210

When constraints interact: A caution about reference variables, identification constraints, and scale dependencies in structural equation modeling.

2002· article· en· W1964275428 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

VenuePsychological Methods · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingLatent variableIdentification (biology)Variable (mathematics)Computer scienceEconometricsScale (ratio)Latent variable modelInstrumental variableMathematical optimizationSoftwareMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In traditional approaches to structural equations modeling, variances of latent endogenous variables cannot be specified or constrained directly and, consequently, are not identified, unless certain precautions are taken. The usual method for achieving identification has been to fix one factor loading for each endogenous latent variable at unity. An alternative approach is to fix variances using newer constrained estimation algorithms. This article examines the philosophy behind such constraints and shows how their appropriate use is neither as straightforward nor as noncontroversial as portrayed in textbooks and computer manuals. The constraints on latent variable variances can interact with other model constraints to interfere with the testing of certain kinds of hypotheses and can yield incorrect standardized solutions with some popular software.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.223 · 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