Sampling properties of directed networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many real-world networks only a small "sampled" version of the original network may be investigated; those results are then used to draw conclusions about the actual system. Variants of breadth-first search (BFS) sampling, which are based on epidemic processes, are widely used. Although it is well established that BFS sampling fails, in most cases, to capture the IN component(s) of directed networks, a description of the effects of BFS sampling on other topological properties is all but absent from the literature. To systematically study the effects of sampling biases on directed networks, we compare BFS sampling to random sampling on complete large-scale directed networks. We present new results and a thorough analysis of the topological properties of seven complete directed networks (prior to sampling), including three versions of Wikipedia, three different sources of sampled World Wide Web data, and an Internet-based social network. We detail the differences that sampling method and coverage can make to the structural properties of sampled versions of these seven networks. Most notably, we find that sampling method and coverage affect both the bow-tie structure and the number and structure of strongly connected components in sampled networks. In addition, at a low sampling coverage (i.e., less than 40%), the values of average degree, variance of out-degree, degree autocorrelation, and link reciprocity are overestimated by 30% or more in BFS-sampled networks and only attain values within 10% of the corresponding values in the complete networks when sampling coverage is in excess of 65%. These results may cause us to rethink what we know about the structure, function, and evolution of real-world directed networks.
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 | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".