Contagion and Interpersonal Influence: Distinguishing Mechanisms of Behavior Change Using Social Network Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper articulates the many ways social network researchers conceptualize and operationalize network influences on people's behaviors. Four categories of network influences are described: (1) personal network, (2) positional, (3) network-level, and (4) individual network-level interactions. Personal network effects are based on data from the individual's direct and indirect contacts. Positional effects are derived from the individual's position in the network such as being central or peripheral. Network-level effects are measured using network-level indicators such as centralization or clustering. Interaction effects occur when there is consideration of both the individual and network level measures such as understanding the influence of being in a central position in a centralized or decentralized network. These various network effects are contrasted with contagion, which is the most frequently used mechanism for diffusion. One conclusion drawn from this review is that when we invoke contagion explanations, we give agency to the product, whereas when we invoke interpersonal influence explanations, we give agency to people and social systems.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".