Multiplicity Control in Structural Equation Modeling: Incorporating Parameter Dependencies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses are conducted, significance tests for all important model relationships (parameters including factor loadings, covariances, etc.) are typically conducted at a specified nominal Type I error rate (α). Despite the fact that many significance tests are often conducted in SEM, rarely is multiplicity control applied. Cribbie (2000, 2007) demonstrated that without some form of adjustment, the familywise Type I error rate can become severely inflated. Cribbie also confirmed that the popular Bonferroni method was overly conservative due to the correlations among the parameters in the model. The purpose of this study was to compare the Type I error rates and per-parameter power of traditional multiplicity strategies with those of adjusted Bonferroni procedures that incorporate not only the number of tests in a family, but also the degree of correlation between parameters. The adjusted Bonferroni procedures were found to produce per-parameter power rates higher than the original Bonferroni procedure without inflating the familywise error rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it