MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601078634 · doi:10.1142/s2425038416300019

Community detection in social networks

2017· article· en· W2601078634 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia with Semantic Computing and Robotic Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomophilyAutomatic summarizationSocial network (sociolinguistics)Social network analysisData scienceNetwork scienceSocial mediaSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebInternet privacyComplex networkSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online social networks have become a fundamental part of the global online experience. They facilitate different modes of communication and social interactions, enabling individuals to play social roles that they regularly undertake in real social settings. In spite of the heterogeneity of the users and interactions, these networks exhibit common properties. For instance, individuals tend to associate with others who share similar interests, a tendency often known as homophily, leading to the formation of communities. This entry aims to provide an overview of the definitions for an online community and review different community detection methods in social networks. Finding communities are beneficial since they provide summarization of network structure, highlighting the main properties of the network. Moreover, it has applications in sociology, biology, marketing and computer science which help scientists identify and extract actionable insight.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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