Exposure, hazard, and survival analysis of diffusion on social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sociologists, economists, epidemiologists, and others recognize the importance of social networks in the diffusion of ideas and behaviors through human societies. To measure the flow of information on real-world networks, researchers often conduct comprehensive sociometric mapping of social links between individuals and then follow the spread of an "innovation" from reports of adoption or change in behavior over time. The innovation is introduced to a small number of individuals who may also be encouraged to spread it to their network contacts. In conjunction with the known social network, the pattern of adoptions gives researchers insight into the spread of the innovation in the population and factors associated with successful diffusion. Researchers have used widely varying statistical tools to estimate these quantities, and there is disagreement about how to analyze diffusion on fully observed networks. Here, we describe a framework for measuring features of diffusion processes on social networks using the epidemiological concepts of exposure and competing risks. Given a realization of a diffusion process on a fully observed network, we show that classical survival regression models can be adapted to estimate the rate of diffusion, and actor/edge attributes associated with successful transmission or adoption, while accounting for the topology of the social network. We illustrate these tools by applying them to a randomized network intervention trial conducted in Honduras to estimate the rate of adoption of 2 health-related interventions-multivitamins and chlorine bleach for water purification-and determine factors associated with successful social transmission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".