Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Path analysis allows one to test the consistency of data to hypothesized causal relationships between variables. Often, interest lies in how the hypothesized dependencies differ between groups. Multigroup comparisons can be made by imposing various constraints: constraints on the topology, the path coefficients, the residual variances, and more. To date, only classical path analysis and structural equation modeling can account for differences between groups. These techniques have assumptions that are often not appropriate for ecological studies. The d‐sep test and the recently developed generalized chi‐squared test relax many of these assumptions for path models that can be represented as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), but are currently lacking a multigroup test. In this paper, we develop a multigroup extension to the d‐sep test. Furthermore, we show how a recently developed generalized chi‐squared test and AIC for DAGs can be used for multigroup testing. The approaches are illustrated by a worked example and implemented in the commonly used statistical package, R. Practical recommendations for multigroup modeling are made, and advantages and disadvantages of the multigroup d‐sep and the chi‐squared test are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".