MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093360043 · doi:10.1057/s41270-020-00089-1

Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes in generalized structured component analysis

2020· article· en· W3093360043 on OpenAlexaff
Gyeongcheol Cho, Heungsun Hwang, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. Ringle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Analytics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersOtto von Guericke University Magdeburg
KeywordsStructural equation modelingGoodness of fitCutoffComponent (thermodynamics)Index (typography)StatisticsMathematicsResidualEconometricsSample (material)Computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) is a technically well-established approach to component-based structural equation modeling that allows for specifying and examining the relationships between observed variables and components thereof. GSCA provides overall fit indexes for model evaluation, including the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). While these indexes have a solid standing in factor-based structural equation modeling, nothing is known about their performance in GSCA. Addressing this limitation, we present a simulation study’s results, which confirm that both GFI and SRMR indexes distinguish effectively between correct and misspecified models. Based on our findings, we propose rules-of-thumb cutoff criteria for each index in different sample sizes, which researchers could use to assess model fit in practice.

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.496
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.496
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations346
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marketing AnalyticsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207