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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influence maximization is the problem of finding a set of influential users in a social network such that the expected spread of influence under a certain propagation model is maximized. Much of the previous work has neglected the important distinction between social influence and actual product adoption. However, as recognized in the management science literature, an individual who gets influenced by social acquaintances may not necessarily adopt a product (or technology), due, e.g., to monetary concerns. In this work, we distinguish between influence and adoption by explicitly modeling the states of being influenced and of adopting a product. We extend the classical Linear Threshold (LT) model to incorporate prices and valuations, and factor them into users' decision-making process of adopting a product. We show that the expected profit function under our proposed model maintains submodularity under certain conditions, but no longer exhibits monotonicity, unlike the expected influence spread function. To maximize the expected profit under our extended LT model, we employ an unbudgeted greedy framework to propose three profit maximization algorithms. The results of our detailed experimental study on three real-world datasets demonstrate that of the three algorithms, PAGE, which assigns prices dynamically based on the profit potential of each candidate seed, has the best performance both in the expected profit achieved and in running time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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