Hierarchical team structure and multidimensional localization (or siloing) on networks
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
Abstract Knowledge silos emerge when structural properties of organizational interaction networks limit the diffusion of information. These structural barriers are known to take many forms at different scales—hubs in otherwise sparse organizations, large dense teams, or global core-periphery structure—but we lack an understanding of how these different structures interact and shape dynamics. Here we take a first theoretical step in bridging the gap between the mathematical literature on localization of spreading dynamics and the more applied literature on knowledge silos in organizational interaction networks. To do so, we introduce a new model that considers a layered structure of teams to unveil a new form of hierarchical localization (i.e. the localization of information at the top or center of an organization) and study its interplay with known phenomena of mesoscopic localization (i.e. the localization of information in large groups), k -core localization (i.e. around denser subgraphs) and hub localization (i.e. around high degree stars). We also include a complex contagion mechanism by considering a general infection kernel which can depend on hierarchical level (influence), degree (popularity), infectious neighbors (social reinforcement) or team size (importance). This very general model allows us to explore the multifaceted phenomenon of information siloing in complex organizational interaction networks and opens the door to new optimization problems to promote or hinder the emergence of different localization regimes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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