Assortativity Analysis of Real-World Network Graphs based on Centrality Metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assortativity index (A. Index) of real-world network graphs has been traditionally computed based on the degree centrality metric and the networks were classified as assortative, dissortative or neutral if the A. Index values are respectively greater than 0, less than 0 or closer to 0. In this paper, we evaluate the A. Index of real-world network graphs based on some of the commonly used centrality metrics (betweenness, eigenvector and closeness) in addition to degree centrality and observe that the assortativity classification of real-world network graphs depends on the node-level centrality metric used. We also propose five different levels of assortativity (strongly assortative, weakly assortative, neutral, weakly dissortative and strongly dissortative) for real-world networks and the corresponding range of A. Index value for the classification. We analyze a collection of 50 real-world network graphs with respect to each of the above four centrality metrics and estimate the empirical probability of observing a real-world network graph to exhibit a particular level of assortativity. We claim that a real-world network graph is more likely to be neutral with respect to the betweenness and degree centrality metrics and more likely to be assortative with respect to the eigenvector and closeness centrality metrics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".