How to Generate Personal Networks: Issues and Tools for a Sociological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate on the limits and relevance of the different name generators comes with the development of social network studies. The core questions are: What are they supposed to construct? For what research question? Some procedures tend to choose a precise target with a unique name generator; others prefer to use a series of name generators. The authors discuss here some specificities and advantages of these methods for ego-centered networks. The authors then present the ‘‘contextual’’ name generator, which was developed in longitudinal qualitative panel studies in France and Québec. This tool gives access to a great variety of information focused on sociological questions. Its original design differentiates two complementary stages to distinguish the global contexts-based network from specific resource-based networks. This tool remains flexible and may be adapted to different topics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.058 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".