Power-law revisited: large scale measurement study of P2P content popularity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—The popularity of contents on the Internet is often said to follow a Zipf-like distribution. Different measurement studies showed, however, significantly different distributions depending on the measurement methodology they followed. We performed a large-scale measurement of the most popular peerto-peer (P2P) content distribution system, BitTorrent, over eleven months. We collected data on a daily to weekly basis from 500 to 800 trackers, with information about 40 to 60 million peers that participated in the distribution of over 10 million torrents. Based on these measurements we show how fundamental characteristics of the observed distribution of content popularity change depending on the measurement methodology and the length of the observation interval. We show that while short-term or small-scale measurements can conclude that the popularity of contents exhibits a power-law tail, the tail is likely exponentially decreasing, especially over long time intervals. I.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it