MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017807702 · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2013.2245629

The Effect of Exogenous Inputs and Defiant Agents on Opinion Dynamics With Local and Global Interactions

2013· article· en· W2017807702 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamics (music)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the conventional models for opinion dynamics mainly account for a fully local influence, where myopic agents decide their actions after they interact with other agents that are adjacent to them. For example, in the case of social interactions, this includes family, friends, and other immediate strong social ties. The model proposed in this paper embodies a global influence as well where by global we mean that each node also observes a sample of the average behavior of the entire population; e.g., in the social example, people observe other people on the streets, subway, and other social venues. We consider the case where nodes have dichotomous states; examples of applications include elections with two major parties, whether or not to adopt a new technology or product, and any yes/no opinion such as in voting on a referendum. The dynamics of states on a network with arbitrary degree distribution are studied. For a given initial condition, we find the probability to reach consensus on each state and the expected time reach to consensus. To model mass media, the effect of an exogenous bias on the average orientation of the system is investigated. To do so, we add an external field to the model that favors one of the states over the other. This field interferes with the regular decision process of each node and creates a constant probability to lean towards one of the states. We solve for the average state of the system as a function of time for given initial conditions. Then anti-conformists (stubborn nodes who never revise their states) are added to the network, in an effort to circumvent the external bias. We find necessary conditions on the number of these defiant nodes required to cancel the effect of the external bias. Our analysis is based on a mean field approximation of the agent opinions.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.261 · 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