MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134925029 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v6n4p123

Structural Equation Modeling in Psychology: The History, Development and Current Challenges

2014· article· en· W2134925029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leila Karimi, Denny Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingPsychologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) represents a series of cause-effect relationships between variables combined into composite testable models (Shipley, 2000). It is extensively used by researchers in different disciplines and is a technique often used in psychology. SEM has attracted attention primarily because it lends itself to effectively studying problems or models that are hard to assess using other procedures. This paper traces the history of SEM in discipline of psychology, and discusses the current developments, the use/misuse of SEM techniques and practical recommendations to direct future research in the discipline.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.467
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.001 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207