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 OpenAlex
Leila Karimi, Denny Meyer

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.467
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