Application of Structural Equation Modeling to the Social Sciences: A Brief Guide for Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emanating from a family of statistical techniques used for the analysis of multivariate data to measure latent variables and their interrelationships, structural equation modeling (SEM) is briefly introduced. The basic tenets of SEM, the principles of model creation, identification, estimation and evaluation are outlined and a four-step procedure for applying SEM to test an evidence-based model of eating disorders (transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural theory; Fairburn, Cooper, & Shafran, 2003) using previously obtained data on eating psychopathology within an athletic population (Shanmugam, Jowett, & Meyer, 2011) is presented and summarized. Central issues and processes underpinning SEM are discussed and it is concluded that SEM offers promise for testing complex, integrated theoretical models and advances of research within the social sciences, with the caveat that it should be restricted to situations wherein there is a pre-existing substantial base of empirical evidence and a strong conceptual understanding of the theory undergirding the research question.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".