IMine: A CUSTOMIZABLE FRAMEWORK FOR INFLUENCE MINING IN COMPLEX NETWORKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of discovering a few nodes with potential to impact an entire network, is known as Influence Maximization (IM) and has many real-world applications which make it one of well-studied research problems in the domain of network analysis. IM typically requires a fixed criteria of budget (number of influential nodes to be identified) as input. The fundamental premise of this research is that the budget is not the sole criteria for real-world applications. This study challenges the conventional method to identify influential nodes, and proves that it requires specification of the stoppage criteria and the model used to quantify influence. We analyze the complex interplay of various criteria that can be used to solve IM problem, and prove that changing the criterion also changes the algorithm determined as the top performer. A number of criteria are presented in this paper apart from budget, such as the spread achieved by the algorithm (in terms of number of nodes influenced) and absolute time. The proposed IMine framework provides an interface to apply influence problem on various stoppage criteria, while also providing customization option to change the model of quantifying influence spread.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".