MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594050085 · doi:10.1103/physreve.95.032304

Effect of node attributes on the temporal dynamics of network structure

2017· article· en· W2594050085 on OpenAlexaff
Naghmeh Momeni, Babak Fotouhi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNode (physics)HierarchyFocus (optics)Degree distributionPreferential attachmentHierarchical network modelPosition (finance)Theoretical computer scienceDynamic network analysisDegree (music)Monte Carlo methodQuality (philosophy)Evolving networksComplex networkStatistical physicsTopology (electrical circuits)Interdependent networksMathematicsComputer networkPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many natural and social networks evolve in time and their structures are dynamic. In most networks, nodes are heterogeneous, and their roles in the evolution of structure differ. This paper focuses on the role of individual attributes on the temporal dynamics of network structure. We focus on a basic model for growing networks that incorporates node attributes (which we call "quality"), and we focus on the problem of forecasting the structural properties of the network in arbitrary times for an arbitrary initial network. That is, we address the following question: If we are given a certain initial network with given arbitrary structure and known node attributes, then how does the structure change in time as new nodes with given distribution of attributes join the network? We solve the model analytically and obtain the quality-degree joint distribution and degree correlations. We characterize the role of individual attributes in the position of individual nodes in the hierarchy of connections. We confirm the theoretical findings with Monte Carlo simulations.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207