Diffusion of binary opinions in a growing population with heterogeneous behaviour and external influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a growing population of individuals with binary opinions, namely, 0 or 1, that evolve in discrete time. The underlying interaction network is complete. At every time step, a fixed number of individuals are added to the population. The opinion of the new individuals may or may not depend on the current configuration of opinions in the population. Further, in each time step, a fixed number of individuals are chosen and they update their opinion in three possible ways: they organically switch their opinion with some probability and with some probability they adopt the majority or the minority opinion. We study the asymptotic behaviour of the fraction of individuals with either opinion and characterize conditions under which it converges to a deterministic limit. We analyze the behaviour of the limiting fraction as a function of the probability of new individuals having opinion 1 as well as with respect to the ratio of the number of people being added to the population and the number of people being chosen to update opinions. We also discuss the nature of fluctuations around the limiting fraction and study the transitions in scaling depending on the system parameters. Further, for this opinion dynamics model on a finite time horizon, we obtain optimal external influencing strategies in terms of when to influence to get the maximum expected fraction of individuals with opinion 1 at the end of the finite time horizon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".