Complex Network Analysis of the Contiguous United States Graph
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
We model the contiguous states (48 states and the District of Columbia) of the United States (US) as an undirected network graph with each state represented as a node and there is an edge between two nodes if the corresponding two states share a common border. We determine a ranking of the states in the US with respect to a suite of node-level metrics: the centrality metrics (degree, eigenvector, betweenness and closeness), eccentricity, maximal clique size, and local clustering coefficient. We propose a normalization-based approach to obtain a comprehensive centrality ranking of the vertices (that is most likely to be tie-free) encompassing the normalized values of the four centrality metrics. We have applied the proposed normalization-based approach on the US States graph to obtain a tie-free ranking of the vertices based on a comprehensive centrality score. We observe the state of Missouri to be the most central state with respect to all the four centrality metrics. We have also analyzed the US States graph with respect to a suite of network-level metrics: bipartivity index, assortativity index, modularity, size of the minimum connected dominating set, algebraic connectivity and degree metrics. The approach taken in this paper could be useful for several application domains: transportation networks (to identify central hubs), politics (to identify campaign venues with larger geographic coverage), cultural and electoral studies (to identify communities of states that are relatively proximal to each other) and etc.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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