MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919337714 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.15.1.p038

Path analysis in Mplus: A tutorial using a conceptual model of psychological and behavioral antecedents of bulimic symptoms in young adults

2019· article· en· W2919337714 on OpenAlexaff
Kheana Barbeau, Kayla Boileau, Fatima Sarr, Kévin Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath analysis (statistics)PsychologyConceptual modelPath (computing)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Path analysis is a widely used multivariate technique to construct conceptual models of psychological, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena. Although causation cannot be inferred by using this technique, researchers utilize path analysis to portray possible causal linkages between observable constructs in order to better understand the processes and mechanisms behind a given phenomenon. The objectives of this tutorial are to provide an overview of path analysis, step-bystep instructions for conducting path analysis in Mplus, and guidelines and tools for researchers to construct and evaluate path models in their respective fields of study. These objectives will be met by using data to generate a conceptual model of the psychological, cognitive, and behavioral antecedents of bulimic symptoms in a sample of young adults.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.017

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations85
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207