MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386906518 · doi:10.1017/9781139794985.005

How Are Social Network Data Collected?

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386906518 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Data scienceNominalismComputer scienceSocial network (sociolinguistics)Data collectionMissing dataSocial network analysisManagement scienceSociologyEpistemologyMachine learningWorld Wide WebComputer securitySocial scienceEconomicsSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We outline key conceptual issues and strategies in social network data collection, focusing on the differences between realist and nominalist approaches. Given that most networks are incomplete in some way, we discuss ways to anticipate and assess problems with missing data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.200
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.200
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.041
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207