MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027334892 · doi:10.1890/12-0976.1

The AIC model selection method applied to path analytic models compared using a d‐separation test

2012· article· en· W2027334892 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAkaike information criterionPath analysis (statistics)Model selectionStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Test statisticMathematicsGeneralizationMultivariate statisticsStatisticSeparation (statistics)Path (computing)NormalityLatent variableStatistical hypothesis testingEconometricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical path analysis is a statistical technique used to test causal hypotheses involving multiple variables without latent variables, assuming linearity, multivariate normality, and a sufficient sample size. The d-separation (d-sep) test is a generalization of path analysis that relaxes these assumptions. Although model selection using Akaike's information criterion (AIC) is well established for classical path analysis, this model selection technique has not yet been developed for d-sep tests. In this paper, I explain how to use the AIC statistic for d-sep tests, give a worked example, and include instructions (supplemental material) to implement the analysis in the R computing language.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.275 · 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