MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415699634 · doi:10.1257/aer.20180798

Just a Few Seeds More: The Value of Network Data for Diffusion

2025· article· en· W4415699634 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Akbarpour, Suraj Malladi, Amin Saberi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Economic Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedingDiffusionHeuristicsSet (abstract data type)Range (aeronautics)CascadeValue (mathematics)Expected value

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying the optimal set of individuals to first receive information (“seeds”) in a social network to maximize expected diffusion is a widely studied question in many settings. Several studies propose network-centrality-based heuristics to select seeds likely to increase diffusion. Here, we show that, for the classic independent cascade model of diffusion, either seeding a few more individuals at random can prompt a larger diffusion than optimal seeding or optimal seeding itself results in limited spread. These findings hold across a broad range of random networks and are supported by simulations on real-world networks. (JEL D83, D85, O12, O18, P25, P32, Z13)

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Economic ReviewSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207