La temporalité dans les analyses de médiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’analyse de médiation permet d’explorer un processus qui se déploie de façon séquentielle dans le temps. Toutefois, négliger la séquence temporelle entre les variables peut mener à d’importants biais statistiques. Afin d’éviter des problèmes méthodologiques et statistiques qui mènent à des conclusions erronées, il est crucial de connaître les spécificités inhérentes à l’analyse de médiation. Cet article décrit les limites courantes découlant des analyses de médiation et propose des solutions. Notamment, les analyses transversales ne sont pas adéquates, car un effet indirect correspond davantage à un effet temporel. Quant aux modèles longitudinaux, ceux-ci peuvent mener à des biais si les effets autorégressifs ou les effets intra et inter-sujets sont négligés. L’utilisation de solutions plus adéquates comme les courbes de croissances latentes et les modèles multiniveaux s’avèrent un choix judicieux pour examiner des effets indirects lorsque des données sont collectées à au moins trois temps de mesure.
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 | 0.195 | 0.439 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".