Analysing networks of networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider data with multiple observations or reports on a network in the case when these networks themselves are connected through some form of network ties. We could take the example of a cognitive social structure where there is another type of tie connecting the actors that provide the reports; or the study of interpersonal spillover effects from one cultural domain to another facilitated by the social ties. Another example is when the individual semantic structures are represented as semantic networks of a group of actors and connected through these actors’ social ties to constitute knowledge of a social group. How to jointly represent the two types of networks is not trivial as the layers and not the nodes of the layers of the reported networks are coupled through a network on the reports. We propose to transform the different multiple networks using line graphs, where actors are affiliated with ties represented as nodes, and represent the totality of the different types of ties as a multilevel network. This affords studying the associations between the social network and the reports as well as the alignment of the reports to a criterion graph. We illustrate how the procedure can be applied to studying the social construction of knowledge in local flood management groups. Here we use multilevel exponential random graph models but the representation also lends itself to stochastic actor-oriented models, multilevel blockmodels, and any model capable of handling multilevel 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".