MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008705296 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.1.p009

Some computational descriptions of moderation analysis

2020· article· en· W3008705296 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsHôpital Louis-H LafontaineUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationComputationVariable (mathematics)Computer scienceVariance (accounting)Regression analysisVariablesEconometricsPsychologyMathematicsAlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moderation analysis is getting more and more popular as a statistical analysis in psychology and in other social sciences. However, there are very few detailed accounts of the computations performed within the model. Articles are more often focusing on explaining moderation conceptually rather than mathematically. Thus, the purpose of the current paper is to introduce the computation within moderation analysis accompanied with examples with R. Firstly, three moderation models will be described: a continuous variable with another continuous variable, two groups and then three groups. Then, two ways to analyze moderation (regression and analysis of variance) are presented. We will show examples using R and the code to implement all computations presented is offered for the readers to implement it themselves as well as a script to carry a complete example.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.060 · 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