MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800971021 · doi:10.1177/1094428118770731

Extensions of Auxiliary Variable Approaches for the Investigation of Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Effects in Mixture Models

2018· article· en· W2800971021 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew J. W. McLarnon, Tom O’Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Research Methods · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModerationMediationEconometricsLatent variablePsychologyStructural equation modelingSyntaxModerated mediationStatistical modelEmpirical researchComputer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingLatent variable modelCognitive psychologySocial psychologyStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Person-centered analyses and mixture models, such as latent profile analyses (LPA), are becoming increasingly common in the organizational literature. However, common usage of LPA rarely extends to the estimation of moderation, conditional effects, and mediation within a single model. This can affect the accuracy of parameter estimates, and it interferes with development and investigation of complex theories. The current study provides an overview of systematic approaches that allows researchers to investigate models involving moderation, conditional effects on outcomes, and mediation. Using M plus, we offer an accessible method of testing complex statistical models that are auxiliary to the focal mixture model. We provide syntax for typical moderation, conditional effects, and mediation hypotheses, and we provide a detailed explanation of the procedures. We demonstrate these procedures with applications involving the five-factor model (FFM) of personality and several additional variables that comprise complex auxiliary statistical models. The pedagogical approach offered by this research will facilitate future theoretical developments and empirical advancements in the use of person-centered analyses.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations142
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganizational Research MethodsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207