Measuring the Graph Concordance of Locally Dependent Observations
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
This paper introduces a simple measure of a concordance pattern among observed outcomes along a network, that is, the pattern in which adjacent outcomes tend to be more strongly correlated than nonadjacent outcomes. The graph concordance measure can be generally used to quantify the empirical relevance of a network in explaining cross-sectional dependence of the outcomes, and as shown in the paper, it can also be used to quantify the extent of homophily under certain conditions. When one observes a single large network, it is nontrivial to make inferences about the concordance pattern. Assuming a dependency graph, this paper develops a permutation-based confidence interval for the graph concordance measure. The confidence interval is valid in finite samples when the outcomes are exchangeable, and under the dependency graph, an assumption together with other regularity conditions, is shown to exhibit asymptotic validity. Monte Carlo simulation results show that the validity of the permutation method is more robust than the asymptotic method to various graph configurations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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