MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094893424 · doi:10.1037/a0029316

A multilevel simultaneous equations model for within-cluster dynamic effects, with an application to reciprocal parent–child and sibling effects.

2012· article· en· W2094893424 on OpenAlexafffund
Fiona Steele, Jon Rasbash, Jennifer Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsReciprocalMultilevel modelPsychologySiblingDevelopmental psychologySet (abstract data type)Social psychologyPeer groupCluster (spacecraft)StatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been substantial interest in the social and health sciences in the reciprocal causal influences that people in close relationships have on one another. Most research has considered reciprocal processes involving only 2 units, although many social relationships of interest occur within a larger group (e.g., families, work groups, peer groups, classrooms). This article presents a general longitudinal multilevel modeling framework for the simultaneous estimation of reciprocal relationships among individuals with unique roles operating in a social group. We use family data for illustrative purposes, but the model is generalizable to any social group in which measurements of individuals in the social group occur over time, individuals have unique roles, and clustering of the data is evident. We allow for the possibility that the outcomes of family members are influenced by a common set of unmeasured family characteristics. The multilevel model we propose allows for residual variation in the outcomes of parents and children at the occasion, individual, and family levels and residual correlation between parents and children due to the unmeasured shared environment, genetic factors, and shared measurement. Another advantage of this method over approaches used in previous family research is it can handle mixed family sizes. The method is illustrated in an analysis of maternal depression and child delinquency using data from the Avon Brothers and Sisters Study.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchFrench-language works237,207