MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163680076 · doi:10.1109/icdmw.2010.97

Modeling and Comparing the Influence of Neighbors on the Behavior of Users in Social and Similarity Networks

2010· article· en· W2163680076 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Jamali, Martin Ester

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Social network (sociolinguistics)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Recommender systemSocial influenceSocial relationSocial mediaArtificial intelligencePsychologySocial psychologyWorld Wide WebData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social networks are becoming more and more popular with the advent of numerous online social networking services. In this paper, we explore social rating networks, which record not only social relations but also user ratings for items. We analyze and model the effects of social influence and correlational influence in such networks, based on influence coefficients that measure the degree of influence in a network. We distinguish two types of user behavior: adopting an item and adopting a rating value for that item. We propose models to analyze and measure the influence of neighbors on both item and rating adoption behavior of users. Our experiments demonstrate that social influence has a much stronger impact on user behavior than correlational influence. Social and correlational influence are global effects in the entire network. However, there are local differences, i.e. certain users have a stronger social influence than others. To model this effect, we introduce the novel concept of social authority of individual users. We also propose an objective way to evaluate the social authority measure by injecting it into a simple recommender system.

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 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 score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207