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] |