MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044962840 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.03.003

Some things you should know about structural equation modeling but never thought to ask

2010· article· en· W2044962840 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

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaOntario Problem Gambling Research Centre
KeywordsStructural equation modelingAsk pricePsychologySample (material)Causal modelEpistemologyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Iacobucci (2009, 2010) covers a number of important issues in the use of structural equation modeling and in so doing provides researchers with many useful insights and sensible suggestions. This commentary focuses on three issues where our views differ somewhat from those expressed in the target articles: SEM and causal inferences, sample size, and model fit. In addressing each of these issues, our perspectives do not so much contradict the views expressed by Iacobucci as they reflect a somewhat different conceptual emphasis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.407
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.094 · 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