MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089189083 · doi:10.1142/s0218213006003065

THE EMERGENCE OF SOCIAL NETWORK HIERARCHY USING CULTURAL ALGORITHMS

2006· article· en· W2089189083 on OpenAlexaff
Ziad Kobti, Robert G. Reynolds, TIM A. KOHLER

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHierarchyReciprocalSocial network (sociolinguistics)KinshipPopulationSwarm behaviourSocial network analysisResilience (materials science)Artificial intelligenceSociologyWorld Wide WebEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we extend the cultural framework previously developed for the Village multi-agent simulation in Swarm to include the emergence of a hub network from two base networks. The first base network is kinship, over which generalized reciprocal exchange is defined, and the second is the economic network where agents carry out balanced reciprocal exchange. Agents, or households, are able to procure several resources. We use Cultural Algorithms as a framework for the emergence of social intelligence at both individual and cultural levels. Successful agents in both networks can promote themselves to be included in the hub network where they can develop exchange links to other hubs. The collective effect of the hub network is representative of the quality of life in the population and serves as an indicator for motives behind the mysterious emigration from the region. Knowledge represents the development and use of exchange relationships between agents. The presence of defectors in the hub network improved resilience of the social system while maintaining the population size at that observed where no defectors were present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence ToolsSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207