MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229813582 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139979573.006

Path analysis and maximum likelihood

2016· book-chapter· en· W4229813582 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Shipley

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonality psychologyDisciplineEpistemologyPath (computing)SociologyHistoryPsychologySocial scienceSocial psychologyComputer sciencePhilosophyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

James Burke (1996), in his fascinating book The Pinball Effect , demonstrates the curious and unexpected paths of influence leading to most scientific discoveries. People often speak of the ‘marriage of ideas’. If this is true then the most prolific intellectual offspring come not from the arranged marriages preferred by research administrators but from chance meetings, and even illicit unions. The popular view of scientific discoveries as being linear causal chains from idea to solution is profoundly wrong; a better image would be a tangled web with many dead ends and broken strands. If most present knowledge depends on unlikely chains of events and personalities, what paths of discovery have been deflected because the right people did not come together at the right time? Which historical developments in science have been changed because two people, each with one half of the solution, were prevented from communicating due to linguistic or disciplinary boundaries? The second stage in the development of modern structural equation modelling is a case study in such historical contingencies and interdisciplinary incomprehension. During the First World War, and in connection with the American war effort, Sewall Wright was on a committee allocating pork production to various states based on the availability of corn. He was confronted with a problem that had a familiar feel. Given a whole series of variables related to corn availability and pork production, how do all these variables interact to determine the relationship between supply and demand, and the fluctuations between these two? It occurred to him that his new method of path analysis might help. He calculated the correlation coefficients between each pair of variables for five years, giving 510 separate correlations. After much trial and error he developed a model involving only four variables (corn price, summer hog price, winter hog price and hog breeding) and only fourteen paths that still gave a ‘good match’ between observed and predicted correlations. He described his results in a manuscript that was submitted as a bulletin of the US Bureau of Animal Industry. It was promptly rejected, perhaps because officials at the Bureau of Agricultural Economics considered it as an intrusion onto their turf. Happily for Wright, he had also shown it to the son of the secretary of agriculture (Henry A. Wallace), who was interested in animal breeding and quantitative modelling.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207