Identifying Influential Nodes in Two-Mode Data Networks Using Formal Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying important actors (or nodes) in a two-mode network is a crucial challenge in mining, analyzing, and interpreting real-world networks. While traditional bipartite centrality indices are often used to recognize key nodes that influence the network information flow, inaccurate results are frequently obtained in intricate situations such as massive networks with complex local structures or a lack of complete knowledge about the network topology and certain properties. In this paper, we introduce Bi-face (BF), a new bipartite centrality measurement for identifying important nodes in two-mode networks. Using the powerful mathematical formalism of Formal Concept Analysis, the BF measure exploits the faces of concept intents to detect nodes that have influential bicliques connectivity and are not located in irrelevant bridges. Unlike off-the shelf centrality indices, it quantifies how a node has a cohesive substructure influence on its neighbour nodes via bicliques while not being in network core-peripheral ones through its absence from non-influential bridges. In terms of identifying accurate node centrality, our experiments on a variety of real-world and synthetic networks show that BF outperforms several state-of-the art bipartite centrality measures, producing the most accurate Kendall coefficient. It provides unique node identification based on network topology. The findings also demonstrate that the presence of terminal nodes, influential bridges, and overlapping key bicliques impacts both the performance and behaviour of BF as well as its relationship to other traditional centrality measures. On the datasets tested, BF is at least twenty-three times faster than betweenness, eleven times faster than percolation, nine times faster than eigenvector, and ten times faster than closeness in terms of computation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".