A Novel Method for Community Detection in Bipartite Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The community structure is a major feature of bipartite networks, which serve as a typical model for empirical networks consisting of two kinds of nodes. Over the past years, community detection has drawn a lot of attention. Numerous methods for community detection have been put forth. Nevertheless, some of them need a lot of time, which restricts their use in large networks. While several low-time complexity algorithms exist, their practical value in real-world applications is limited since they are typically non-deterministic. Typically, in bipartite networks, a unipartite projection of one part of the network is created, and then communities are detected inside that projection using methods for unipartite networks. Unipartite projections may yield incorrect or erroneous findings as they inevitably include a loss of information. In this paper, BiVoting, a two-mode and deterministic community detection method in bipartite networks, is proposed. This method is a consequence of bipartite modularity, which quantifies the strength of partitions and is based on how people vote in social elections. The proposed method’s performance was evaluated, and comparison with four common community detection methods in bipartite networks shows that for calculating the modularity score in large networks, BiVoting performs better than the best method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".