Network-cycle motif participation is associated with individual and collective wealth in Honduran villages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geodesic cycles, or loops of nodes connected in a sequence within a network, are an important if under-studied network motif, and their prominence or deficiency is associated with both beneficial and detrimental properties in diverse kinds of networks. Here, we examine cycles formed by people's reports of informal borrowing/lending and friendship ties among 22,551 rural Hondurans (in 174 isolated villages), and we explore their association with personal and community wealth across two time points. We find that cycles of different lengths (i.e., 3 or 4 ties in a loop) constitute an over-represented motif, and their quantity is strongly associated with individual wealth, i.e., richer individuals are involved in more cycles. Furthermore, we introduce a new metric of cycle composition, defined as the average of some measure (e.g., wealth) of a node's alters in its cycles, and find that this metric outperforms cycle quantity as an indicator of both current and future wealth. A longitudinal analysis also reflects a higher participation rate in future cycles among wealthier individuals. When benchmarking cycles with eigenvector centrality, we find that cycle participation offers distinctive insights. Finally, cycle composition is a strong indicator of overall village wealth. In sum, the potential for the flow of money in a village through structural social network cycles may relate to both individual-level and village-level wealth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".