Meeting Strangers and Friends of Friends: How Random Are Social Networks?
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.919
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.701
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
We present a dynamic model of network formation where nodes find other nodes with whom to form links in two ways: some are found uniformly at random, while others are found by searching locally through the current structure of the network (e.g., meeting friends of friends). This combination of meeting processes results in a spectrum of features exhibited by large social networks, including the presence of more high- and low-degree nodes than when links are formed independently at random, having low distances between nodes in the network, and having high clustering of links on a local level. We fit the model to data from six networks and impute the relative ratio of random to network-based meetings in link formation, which turns out to vary dramatically across applications. We show that as the random/network-based meeting ratio varies, the resulting degree distributions can be ordered in the sense of stochastic dominance, which allows us to infer how the formation process affects average utility in the network. (JEL D85, Z13)
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.
The record
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Topic
- Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Field
- Physics and Astronomy
- Canadian institutions
- Kellogg's (Canada)
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Random graphDominance (genetics)Network formationSocial network (sociolinguistics)Cluster analysisPreferential attachmentStochastic dominanceComputer scienceGiant componentSpatial networkDegree (music)Stochastic processComplex networkMathematicsEconometricsTheoretical computer scienceCombinatoricsStatisticsGraphArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebPhysicsSocial media
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes