MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252563725 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v10n2p137

Comparative Performance of Estimation Maximization Among Residual Estimators: A Structural Equation Modelling Perspective

2021· article· en· W4252563725 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdul Aziz, Albert Luguterah, Bashiru I. I. Saeed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorResidualMaximizationMathematicsStructural equation modelingRegression analysisRegressionStatisticsEstimationEconometricsPerspective (graphical)Applied mathematicsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the concept of methodology has advanced, varied methods of estimating residuals have been developed including regression method, Bartlett’s method and Anderson-Rubin’s method. The study utilized estimation maximization approach together with other methods of estimating residuals under the structural equation model. The results showed that the strength of the existing methods in structural equation modelling are the weaknesses of the estimation maximization method, and vice versa. It was, therefore, found that from the comparative model fit information that the Bartlett’s based method gave better residual parameter estimates compared to the Regression based and the Anderson Rubin based methods. However, the estimation maximization method gave better residual parameter estimates than the other three existing methods; the Regression, Bartlett’s and the Anderson Rubin based methods.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207