Modeling and Analyzing Information Propagation Evolution Integrating Internal and External Influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Online social networks have revolutionized communication, providing individuals with platforms to express their personal opinions on diverse topics. Researchers have independently explored information propagation and opinion evolution within complex networks. However, these phenomena exhibit interconnectedness, where information dissemination influences opinion evolution and vice versa. To address challenges in complex network modeling and opinion‐information coupling, internal and external factors are considered in public opinion scenarios by incorporating the crowd effect, enhancement effect, and evolutionary game theory. The susceptible‐latent‐forwarding‐immune‐Jager‐Amblard (SLFI‐JA) model is presented by modifying the SLFI propagation dynamics model and the JA opinion dynamics model, enabling the integration of information propagation and opinion evolution at the microlevel. Through analyzing real‐world social hotspots on Sina Weibo, case studies and comparative analyses are conducted to validate the rationality and effectiveness of the proposed model. Furthermore, the findings identify key factors influencing public opinion dissemination and group opinion evolution, offering valuable insights to relevant departments in public opinion response and management. The study aims to mitigate the harmful effects of negative public opinions, prevent extreme adverse online events, and foster a healthier online environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".