MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953134634 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.7091

Eminence Grise Coalitions: On the Shaping of Public Opinion

2014· preprint· en· W2953134634 on OpenAlexaff
Sadegh Bolouki, Roland P. Malhamé, Milad Siami, Nader Motee

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphConvergence (economics)Set (abstract data type)Public opinionMathematical economicsComputer scienceRelation (database)Order (exchange)Discrete time and continuous timeMathematicsMathematical optimizationTheoretical computer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsLawStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a network of evolving opinions. It includes multiple individuals with first-order opinion dynamics defined in continuous time and evolving based on a general exogenously defined time-varying underlying graph. In such a network, for an arbitrary fixed initial time, a subset of individuals forms an eminence grise coalition, abbreviated as EGC, if the individuals in that subset are capable of leading the entire network to agreeing on any desired opinion, through a cooperative choice of their own initial opinions. In this endeavor, the coalition members are assumed to have access to full profile of the underlying graph of the network as well as the initial opinions of all other individuals. While the complete coalition of individuals always qualifies as an EGC, we establish the existence of a minimum size EGC for an arbitrary time-varying network; also, we develop a non-trivial set of upper and lower bounds on that size. As a result, we show that, even when the underlying graph does not guarantee convergence to a global or multiple consensus, a generally restricted coalition of agents can steer public opinion towards a desired global consensus without affecting any of the predefined graph interactions, provided they can cooperatively adjust their own initial opinions. Geometric insights into the structure of EGC's are given. The results are also extended to the discrete time case where the relation with Decomposition-Separation Theorem is also made explicit.

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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.078 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207