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 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

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.266
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