New Survey Questions and Estimators for Network Clustering with Respondent-driven Sampling Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a popular method for sampling hard-to-survey populations that leverages social network connections through peer recruitment. While RDS is most frequently applied to estimate the prevalence of infections and risk behaviors of interest to public health, such as HIV/AIDS or condom use, it is rarely used to draw inferences about the structural properties of social networks among such populations because it does not typically collect the necessary data. Drawing on recent advances in computer science, we introduce a set of data collection instruments and RDS estimators for network clustering, an important topological property that has been linked to a network's potential for diffusion of information, disease, and health behaviors. We use simulations to explore how these estimators, originally developed for random walk samples of computer networks, perform when applied to RDS samples with characteristics encountered in realistic field settings that depart from random walks. In particular, we explore the effects of multiple seeds, without replacement versus with replacement, branching chains, imperfect response rates, preferential recruitment, and misreporting of ties. We find that clustering coefficient estimators retain desirable properties in RDS samples. This paper takes an important step toward calculating network characteristics using nontraditional sampling methods, and it expands the potential of RDS to tell researchers more about hidden populations and the social factors driving disease prevalence.
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 | 0.051 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".