Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where do networks come from? Numerous theories direct us to the causes of networks (e.g., homophily, triadic closure, physical proximity), some emphasizing outside factors (exogenous causes) and others emphasizing point-in-time network structure (endogenous causes) as shaping a network’s future trajectory. So far, we have examined such causal theories using cross-sectional snapshots in the form of metrics (centrality, density), partitions (clusters), and maps or spaces (visualization). These approaches generally suffer from a lack of stochastic features and observational overdetermination: for example, we observe a pattern in a given school on a given day, but that pattern could result from actor preferences and constraints in the setting. Disentangling such effects requires an inferential approach to probabilistically examine various effects. To the extent that we want to identify causal forces shaping the networks, understanding the unfolding of relations in time – how the individual ties in a network (the dyads joined by one or more relations) and the entire structure of these relations emerge and evolve – is crucial for testing network theories.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".