Dear all,
I would like to clarify how the QCA R package treats configurations with little empirical evidence, and whether my understanding and process diagram correctly reflect what the software does.
In my analysis, I have 8 conditions (256 possible configurations) and 280 cases, and I apply a frequency threshold (n.cut).
I would be very grateful for clarification on the following questions:
Are configurations with cases below the frequency threshold (n < n.cut, but not zero) treated as logical remainders, coded as “?”, and included in minimisation for intermediate and parsimonious solutions?
Or, are only configurations with no empirical cases (n = 0) treated as logical remainders, while low-frequency configurations (n < n.cut) are treated differently?
If low-frequency configurations are treated differently, are they coded as outcome “0” rather than “?” and therefore not used as counterfactuals in minimisation?
Based on this, does my process diagram correctly represent how QCA in R handles:
My aim is to ensure that both my interpretation and diagram accurately reflect the actual implementation in the QCA package.
Many thanks for your help.
Best regards,
Kalihputro 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "QCA with R" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qcawithr+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qcawithr/59b82ef6-7fff-4f15-825f-b677dc8b34a0n%40googlegroups.com.