MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403637616 · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae428

Enough but not too many: A bi-threshold model for behavioral diffusion

2024· article· en· W4403637616 on OpenAlexafffund
Fahimeh Alipour, Fedor A. Dokshin, Zeinab Maleki, Yunya Song, Pouria Ramazi

Bibliographic record

VenuePNAS Nexus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThreshold modelContext (archaeology)DiffusionComputer scienceEconometricsBehavioral modelingPsychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral diffusion is commonly modeled with the linear threshold model, which assumes that individuals adopt a behavior when enough of their social contacts do so. We observe, however, that in many common empirical settings individuals also appear to abandon a behavior when too many of their close contacts exhibit it. The bi-threshold model captures this tendency by adding an upper threshold, which, when exceeded, triggers behavioral disadoption. Here we report an empirical test of the bi-threshold model. We overcome the significant challenge of estimating individuals' heterogeneous thresholds by extending a recently introduced decision-tree based algorithm to the bi-threshold setting. Using the context of the spread of news about three different topics on social media (the Higgs boson, the Melbourne Cup horse race, and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in China), we show that the bi-threshold model predicts user engagement with the news orders of magnitude more accurately than the linear threshold model. We show that the performance gains are due especially to the bi-threshold model's comparative advantage in predicting behavioral decline, an important but previously overlooked stage of the behavioral diffusion cycle. Overall, the results confirm the existence of the second upper threshold in some contexts of diffusion of information and suggest that a similar mechanism may operate in other decision-making contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePNAS NexusSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207