Table 3 Aggregate ERGM results.

From: Ukrainian refugees struggling to integrate into Czech school social networks

Effect

Log odds

SE

p-value

95% CI

Structural effects on friendship ties

interceptfriendship

−3.19

0.45

<0.01

[−4.08, −2.30]

reciprocityfriendship

1.63

0.18

<0.01

[1.27, 1.99]

path closurefriendship

1.39

0.17

<0.01

[1.05, 1.73]

cyclic closurefriendship

−0.21

0.12

0.08

[−0.45, 0.02]

multiple 2-pathsfriendship

−0.06

0.08

0.48

[−0.21, 0.10]

alternating-in-alternating-out-starfriendship

0.77

0.24

<0.01

[0.31, 1.24]

Covariate effects on friendship ties

ethnic homophilyfriendship

1.83

0.24

<0.01

[1.37, 2.29]

sender effect for Ukrainiansfriendship

−0.61

0.16

<0.01

[−0.92, −0.30]

receiver effect for Ukrainiansfriendship

−0.43

0.16

0.01

[−0.73, −0.12]

gender homophilyfriendship

1.32

0.19

<0.01

[0.95, 1.68]

sender effect for boysfriendship

−0.61

0.19

<0.01

[−1.00, −0.23]

receiver effect for boysfriendship

−0.54

0.16

<0.01

[−0.86, −0.22]

Structural effects on exclusion ties

interceptexclusion

−1.41

0.26

<0.01

[−1.92, −0.89]

reciprocityexclusion

0.68

0.19

<0.01

[0.31, 1.04]

Covariate effects on exclusion ties

ethnic homophilyexclusion

0.97

0.35

0.01

[0.28, 1.66]

sender effect for Ukrainiansexclusion

−0.42

0.32

0.19

[−1.04, 0.21]

receiver effect for Ukrainiansexclusion

−0.26

0.19

0.17

[−0.64, 0.11]

gender homophilyexclusion

−0.39

0.27

0.14

[−0.92, 0.13]

sender effect for boysexclusion

0.34

0.29

0.25

[−0.23, 0.91]

receiver effect for boysexclusion

0.48

0.22

0.02

[0.06, 0.90]

cross-layer dependence term

cross-layer tie formationfriendship x exclusion

−2.43

0.20

<0.01

[−2.82, −2.03]