Understanding Video Sharing Propagation in Social Networks
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
Modern online social networking has drastically changed the information distribution landscape. Recently, video has become one of the most important types of objects spreading among social networking service users. The sheer and ever-increasing data volume, the broader coverage, and the longer access durations of video objects, however, present significantly more challenges than other types of objects. This article takes an initial step toward understanding the unique characteristics of video sharing propagation in social networks. Based on realworld data traces from a large-scale online social network, we examine the user behavior from diverse aspects and identify different types of users involved in video propagation. We closely investigate the temporal distribution during propagation as well as the typical propagation structures, revealing more details beyond stationary coverage. We further extend the conventional epidemic models to accommodate diverse types of users and their probabilistic viewing and sharing behaviors. The model, effectively capturing the essentials of the propagation process, serves as a valuable basis for such applications as workload synthesis, traffic prediction, and resource provision of video servers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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