DynaMo Analyzation: Dynamic Community Detection by Incrementally Maximizing Modularity Analyzation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-world systems are dynamic and complex. Networks can be used to represent these real-world systems. Cluster formation is very important and challenging problems regarding the networks, especially since the real-world networks are dynamic and hard to distinguish communities. DynaMo, which is dynamic community detection by incrementally maximizing modularity analysis, is one of the algorithms that can cluster the dynamic networks. In this paper, the principle and methodology of DynaMo is discussed to introduce the basic background of DynaMo. In order to test the performance of DynaMo, an experiment is conducted to compare the performance of DynaMo with that of the other two algorithms (LWEP & activation) by using several real-world datasets. After the experiment, we can see that different evaluation criteria results in a different performance of these three algorithms. We can conclude that for the NMI, precision, and purity value part, activation outperforms DynaMo and LWEP, while in the recall and Fl value part, DynaMo outperforms activation and LWEP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".