MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539265339 · doi:10.1103/physreve.92.062809

Complex networks as an emerging property of hierarchical preferential attachment

2015· article· en· W1539265339 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurent Hébert‐Dufresne, Edward Laurence, Antoine Allard, Jean-Gabriel Young, Louis J. Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsHierarchyComplex systemPreferential attachmentRandomnessComplex networkComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)Theoretical computer scienceProperty (philosophy)Projection (relational algebra)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsEpistemologyAlgorithmEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real complex systems are not rigidly structured; no clear rules or blueprints exist for their construction. Yet, amidst their apparent randomness, complex structural properties universally emerge. We propose that an important class of complex systems can be modeled as an organization of many embedded levels (potentially infinite in number), all of them following the same universal growth principle known as preferential attachment. We give examples of such hierarchy in real systems, for instance, in the pyramid of production entities of the film industry. More importantly, we show how real complex networks can be interpreted as a projection of our model, from which their scale independence, their clustering, their hierarchy, their fractality, and their navigability naturally emerge. Our results suggest that complex networks, viewed as growing systems, can be quite simple, and that the apparent complexity of their structure is largely a reflection of their unobserved hierarchical nature.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207