How to evaluate local fit (residuals) in large structural equation models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent with reporting standards for structural equation modelling (SEM), model fit should be evaluated at two different levels, global and local. Global fit concerns the overall or average correspondence between the entire data matrix and the model, given the parameter estimates for the model. Local fit is evaluated at the level of the residuals, or differences between observed and predicted associations for every pair of measured variables in the model. It can happen that models with apparently satisfactory global fit can nevertheless have problematic local fit. This may be especially true for relatively large models with many variables, where serious misspecification is indicated by some larger residuals, but their contribution to global fit is diluted when averaged together with all the other smaller residuals. It can be challenging to evaluate local fit in large models with dozens or even hundreds of variables and corresponding residuals. Thus, the main goal of this tutorial is to offer suggestions about how to efficiently evaluate and describe local fit for large structural equation models. An empirical example is described where all data, syntax and output files are freely available to readers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it