MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070018731 · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1002_3

Testing Recursive Path Models With Correlated Errors Using D-Separation

2003· article· en· W2070018731 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Shipley

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditional independenceMathematicsDirected acyclic graphPath (computing)Independence (probability theory)Markov chainPath analysis (statistics)StatisticGraphStatisticsTest statisticAlgorithmCombinatoricsStatistical hypothesis testingDiscrete mathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article shows how to extend the inferential test of Shipley (2000b), which is applicable to recursive path models without correlated errors (a directed acyclic graph [DAG] model), to a class of recursive path models that include correlated errors (a semi-Markov model). The path model is first converted to a partial ancestral graph (PAG) and then, for PAGs that do not require latent variables, an inducing path DAG is obtained that is equivalent in its conditional independence relations to the original path model. The null probabilities of the k tests of independence that are implied by this DAG are combined using Fisher's test statistic C = -2ΣLn(pi), which is distributed as a chi-square variate with 2k degrees of freedom.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.218
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.218
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary JournalSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207