The Soret Coefficient measures this effect.
The raw SEM coefficient representing this effect, denominated b4 on Figure 5, was estimated at 0.0956 with corresponding standard error of 0.016, leading to a highly significant t-value of 61.54.
Low levels of emotional stability were most strongly associated with depressive symptoms (standardized regression coefficients −0.29), but this effect was found to be reduced (mediated, to −0.26) by social inhibition.
The analysis of model 2 (Eq. 3) shows that capital formation and export growth are consistent with the results in model 1, but trade partner growth loses its statistical significance; instead the interaction between trade partner growth and "Boom" has a significant coefficient of 0.069, indicating that this effect is concentrated during the commodity boom period.
Model predictions were significantly correlated with measured values, as evidenced by a squared Pearson product correlation coefficient of r = 0.993; this effect is observable in the plot as the data are scattered about the line of unity.
The Hill coefficient is used to quantify this effect, where a value of 1 indicates a completely independent binding, a value greater than 1 indicates a positive cooperativity, and a value less than 1 indicates a negative cooperativity.
Model D assumed a regression (slope) coefficient for the interaction terms, this effect was common across treatments and thus common to parts I (eq. D1) and II (eq. D2).
As the focus is on the relationship of the wage coefficient to the overall coefficient effect, normalization concerns are not expected to affect this relationship.
The percentages in this table represent the intraclass correlation coefficient for actor effects, partner effects, relationship effects and error variance.
This means that smaller interspecific competitive coefficients have positive effect to the stability property of the system.
