What the eye does not see: visualizations strategies for the data collection of personal networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The graphic representation of relational data is one of the central elements of social network analysis. In this paper, the author describe the use of visualization in interview-based data collection procedures designed to obtain personal networks information, exploring four main contributions. First, the author shows a procedure by which the visualization is integrated with traditional name generators to facilitate obtaining information and reducing the burden of the interview process. Second, the author describes the reactions and qualitative interpretation of the interviewees when they are presented with an analytical visualization of their personal network. The most frequent strategies consist in identifying the key individuals, dividing the personal network in groups and classifying alters in concentric circles of relative importance. Next, the author explores how the visualization of groups in personal networks facilitates the enumeration of the communities in which individuals participate. This allows the author to reflect on the role of social circles in determining the structure of personal networks. Finally, the author compares the graphic representation obtained through spontaneous, hand-drawn sociograms with the analytical visualizations elicited through software tools. This allows the author to demonstrate that analytical procedures reveal aspects of the structure of personal networks that respondents are not aware of, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using both modes of data collection. For this, the author presents findings from a study of highly skilled migrants living in Spain ( n = 95) through which the author illustrates the challenges, in terms of data reliability, validity and burden on both the researcher and the participants.
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 | 0.030 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".