Topology of Innovation Spaces in the Knowledge Networks Emerging through Questions-And-Answers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The communication processes of knowledge creation represent a particular class of human dynamics where the expertise of individuals plays a substantial role, thus offering a unique possibility to study the structure of knowledge networks from online data. Here, we use the empirical evidence from questions-and-answers in mathematics to analyse the emergence of the network of knowledge contents (or tags) as the individual experts use them in the process. After removing extra edges from the network-associated graph, we apply the methods of algebraic topology of graphs to examine the structure of higher-order combinatorial spaces in networks for four consecutive time intervals. We find that the ranking distributions of the suitably scaled topological dimensions of nodes fall into a unique curve for all time intervals and filtering levels, suggesting a robust architecture of knowledge networks. Moreover, these networks preserve the logical structure of knowledge within emergent communities of nodes, labeled according to a standard mathematical classification scheme. Further, we investigate the appearance of new contents over time and their innovative combinations, which expand the knowledge network. In each network, we identify an innovation channel as a subgraph of triangles and larger simplices to which new tags attach. Our results show that the increasing topological complexity of the innovation channels contributes to network's architecture over different time periods, and is consistent with temporal correlations of the occurrence of new tags. The methodology applies to a wide class of data with the suitable temporal resolution and clearly identified knowledge-content units.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".