Table 5.

Linear model for proximity with robust inference (HC3)

PredictorEstimateRobust SE (HC3)tp95% CI (HC3)
Intercept0.49330.08206.016< 0.001***[0.331, 0.656]
Eigenvector−0.09020.0266−3.3910.001***[−0.143, −0.038]
Betweenness0.04100.04120.9940.323[−0.041, 0.123]
degree0.005140.002012.5580.012*[0.00116, 0.00912]
Clustering0.04440.03371.3160.191[−0.0224, 0.1112]
R20.438
Adj. R20.416
Residual SE0.087  (df = 105)
Model F (OLS)F(4, 105) = 20.41, p < 0.001
Note(s):

Collinearity was not problematic (VIF: eigenvector = 3.27; betweenness = 1.13; degree = 3.45; clust = 1.29). The deviation from normality of the residuals using Shapiro–Wilk was W = 0.950, p = 0.0004 with substantive heteroscedasticity (Breusch–Pagan BP = 71.04, df = 4, p < 10–9). In this sense, classical inference may underestimate uncertainty, so we consider robust standard errors for heteroscedasticity (HC3) and robust t contrasts for all coefficients. Given that proximity ∈ [0, 1], the specification was reviewed using a fractional regression, and the signs and relative magnitude of the effects are consistent. In addition, we inspected residuals, leverage, Cook’s distances (4/n) and partial linearity to rule out the disproportionate influence of individual cases. It is also worth noting that proximity and intermediation metrics were calculated with distance weights (transforming similarities wij to dij = 1/wij) to facilitate the interpretation of minimum paths when using unweighted metrics. Standard errors and t tests are HC3-robust (heteroscedasticity) (Jochmans, 2022). Predictors with superscript are standardized; degree is in number of links. The 95% CIs were calculated with t-quantiles (df = 105). Point estimators and R2 are OLS; Significance codes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal