Influence of number of individuals and observations per individual on a model of community structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social network analysis is increasingly applied to understand animal groups. However, it is rarely feasible to observe every interaction among all individuals in natural populations. Studies have assessed how missing information affects estimates of individual network positions, but less attention has been paid to metrics that characterize overall network structure such as modularity, clustering coefficient, and density. In cases such as groups displaying fission-fusion dynamics, where subgroups break apart and rejoin in changing conformations, missing information may affect estimates of global network structure differently than in groups with distinctly separated communities due to the influence single individuals can have on the connectivity of the network. Using a bat maternity group showing fission-fusion dynamics, we quantify the effect of missing data on global network measures including community detection. In our system, estimating the number of communities was less reliable than detecting community structure. Further, reliably assorting individual bats into communities required fewer individuals and fewer observations per individual than to estimate the number of communities. Specifically, our metrics of global network structure (i.e., graph density, clustering coefficient, Rcom) approached the ‘real’ values with increasing numbers of observations per individual and, as the number of individuals included increased, the variance in these estimates decreased. Similar to previous studies, we recommend that more observations per individual should be prioritized over including more individuals when resources are limited. We recommend caution when making conclusions about animal social networks when a substantial number of individuals or observations are missing, and when possible, suggest subsampling large datasets to observe how estimates are influenced by sampling intensity. Our study serves as an example of the reliability, or lack thereof, of global network measures with missing information, but further work is needed to determine how estimates will vary with different data collection methods, network structures, and sampling periods.
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 | 0.020 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".