Identifying Top-k Most Influential Nodes by using the Topological Diffusion Models in the Complex Networks
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
Social networks are sub-set of complex networks, where users are defined as nodes, and the connections between users are edges. One of the important issues concerning social network analysis is identifying influential and penetrable nodes. Centrality is an important method among many others practiced for identification of influential nodes. Centrality criteria include degree centrality, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and Eigenvector centrality; all of which are used in identifying those influential nodes in weighted and weightless networks. TOPSIS is another basic and multi-criteria method which employs four criteria of centrality simultaneously to identify influential nodes; a fact that makes it more accurate than the above criteria. Another method used for identifying influential or top-k influential nodes in complex social networks is Heat Diffusion Kernel: As one of the Topological Diffusion Models; this model identifies nodes based on heat diffusion. In the present paper, to use the topological diffusion model, the social network graph is drawn up by the interactive and non-interactive activities; then, based on the diffusion, the dynamic equations of the graph are modeled. This was followed by using improved heat diffusion kernels to improve the accuracy of influential nodes identification. After several re-administrations of the topological diffusion models, those users who diffused more heat were chosen as the most influential nodes in the concerned social network. Finally, to evaluate the model, the current method was compared with Technique for Order Preferences by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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