MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770619614 · doi:10.1145/3110025.3110089

Efficient Mining of 'Following' Patterns from Very Big but Sparse Social Networks

2017· article· en· W2770619614 on OpenAlexafffund
Carson K. Leung, Fan Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceBig dataData scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in technology in the current era of big data has led to the high-velocity generation of high volumes of a wide variety of valuable data of different veracity. As rich sources of big data, social networks consist of users (or social entities) who are often linked by some interdependency such as 'following' relationships. Given these big social networks keep growing, there are situations in which an individual user (or business) wants to find those frequently followed groups of social entities so that he can follow the same groups. Discovery of these frequently followed groups can be challenging because the social networks are usually very big (with lots of users/social entities) but can be sparse (with most users only know some but not all users/social entities in a social network). In this paper, we present a few social network mining algorithms that use compressed models in mining these very big but sparse social networks for discovering groups of frequently followed social entities. Evaluation results show the practicality of our algorithms in efficient mining of 'following' patterns from very big but sparse social networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207