MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W63450075

Testing Models or Fitting Models? Identifying Model Misspecification in PLS

2010· article· en· W63450075 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Information Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartial least squares regressionStructural equation modelingStatistical modelLatent variableComputer scienceData modelingSet (abstract data type)EconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingData setData miningStatisticsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial Least Squares (PLS) is a statistical technique that is widely used in the Information Systems discipline to estimate statistical models with structural equations and latent variables. While PLS does not provide a statistical test of model fit to data, its proponents have suggested a set of criteria that good PLS models should fulfill. Conversely, when a model does not satisfy these criteria, it would be judged a bad model. In this paper, we report on the results of a simulation study to examine to what extent the proposed model quality criteria are able to identify misspecified models.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.145 · 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