Difference between revisions of "MCSN Tuesday, 1-Nov-11"

From CCE wiki archived
Jump to: navigation, search
(Applications: creating and manipulating two mode networks)
(Basic ideas)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
=== Basic ideas ===
 
=== Basic ideas ===
 
* People affiliate to groups (often defined by space, like the University of Alberta), and events (typically defined by space-time, like this class session), whether by choice or circumstance.  
 
* People affiliate to groups (often defined by space, like the University of Alberta), and events (typically defined by space-time, like this class session), whether by choice or circumstance.  
* Such affiliations define ''bipartite'' networks comprising two kinds of vertex, which we can call ''actors'' and ''events'' (don't be confused - ''events'' could be more like groups)
+
* Such affiliations define ''bipartite'' networks comprising two kinds of vertex, which we can call ''actors'' and ''events'' (don't be confused - ''events'' could be more like groups).
 
* In a ''bipartite'' network there are two kinds of vertex, type A and type B.  All lines connect a type A vertex to a type B vertex - there are no direct connections between vertices of type A, nor are there direct connections between vertices of type B.  
 
* In a ''bipartite'' network there are two kinds of vertex, type A and type B.  All lines connect a type A vertex to a type B vertex - there are no direct connections between vertices of type A, nor are there direct connections between vertices of type B.  
 
* A bipartite network is also called "two mode", since there are two kinds of vertex, and is represented by a matrix rectangle rather than a square (see this in Excel)
 
* A bipartite network is also called "two mode", since there are two kinds of vertex, and is represented by a matrix rectangle rather than a square (see this in Excel)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
** Note:  social identity can't be captured in a single Pajek partition....why?  The concept of partition is closer to the traditional "culture" model of exclusive all-encompassing identities.
 
** Note:  social identity can't be captured in a single Pajek partition....why?  The concept of partition is closer to the traditional "culture" model of exclusive all-encompassing identities.
 
* Social circles may also imply ''power circles'' with critical implications for relationships among "events" (groups).  Example:  [http://www.theyrule.net/ Interlocking directorates]
 
* Social circles may also imply ''power circles'' with critical implications for relationships among "events" (groups).  Example:  [http://www.theyrule.net/ Interlocking directorates]
 +
* Degree of a vertex indicates the scope of the corresponding social circle:
 +
** Degree of an event:  ''size''
 +
** Degree of an actor:  ''rate of participation''
 +
 
=== Typical  assumptions about affiliation networks ===
 
=== Typical  assumptions about affiliation networks ===
 
* Book states them as facts (see p. 101), but you should ''critique them in theory! test them in your projects!''
 
* Book states them as facts (see p. 101), but you should ''critique them in theory! test them in your projects!''

Revision as of 09:01, 1 November 2011

Quiz #2 take 2

  • A pedagogical success. Nearly everyone did much better than before.
  • page 1 - bravo! (perhaps one or two arithmetic mistakes, or creating a semiwalk that was also a semipath...)
  • page 2, also bravo, mostly - but a few common misconceptions remain:
    • components can't overlap (because they're maximal)
    • cores: can't be determined from degree. For one thing, a vertex in the 4-core has to be connected to at least 4 others in the 4-core (by definition!). Therefore the smallest 4-core will have 5 vertices. Some people indicated a single node as belonging to the 4-core.
    • cliques: are defined to be maximal. So a triad isn't necessarily a clique, though if it's not a clique on its own it must be part of a larger clique. Note also that a square is not a clique unless it contains its diagonals.

4.8

  • How to define the flying teams?

Affiliation networks

Concepts

Basic ideas

  • People affiliate to groups (often defined by space, like the University of Alberta), and events (typically defined by space-time, like this class session), whether by choice or circumstance.
  • Such affiliations define bipartite networks comprising two kinds of vertex, which we can call actors and events (don't be confused - events could be more like groups).
  • In a bipartite network there are two kinds of vertex, type A and type B. All lines connect a type A vertex to a type B vertex - there are no direct connections between vertices of type A, nor are there direct connections between vertices of type B.
  • A bipartite network is also called "two mode", since there are two kinds of vertex, and is represented by a matrix rectangle rather than a square (see this in Excel)
  • Affiliations define social circles which overlap.
  • Network representation of identity as a model for social belonging:
    • Culture model (common in traditional ethnomusicology): each individual belongs to one "complex whole" as Tylor put it in 1847.
    • Identity model (more common in sociology and contemporary ethnomusicology): each individual associates with multiple "simple parts", each person in a slightly different way. These "parts" can be viewed as social circles whose intersection is the individual.
    • Note: social identity can't be captured in a single Pajek partition....why? The concept of partition is closer to the traditional "culture" model of exclusive all-encompassing identities.
  • Social circles may also imply power circles with critical implications for relationships among "events" (groups). Example: Interlocking directorates
  • Degree of a vertex indicates the scope of the corresponding social circle:
    • Degree of an event: size
    • Degree of an actor: rate of participation

Typical assumptions about affiliation networks

  • Book states them as facts (see p. 101), but you should critique them in theory! test them in your projects!
  1. Affiliations are institutional or structural - less personal than friendships or sentiments. [What do you think? How could we test this?]
  2. "Although membership lists do not tell us exactly which people interact, communicate, and like each other, we may assume that there is a fair chance that they will." [what factors might impact the chances of actual dyadic interaction?]
  3. Actors at the intersection of multiple social circles...
    1. tend to interact even more
    2. enable indirect communication/control between the circles as a whole.
  4. "Joint membership in a social circle often entails similarities in other social domains." (i.e. homophily principle...Cause or effect?)

Representations

  • Representing two-mode networks with rectangular matrices
    • Rows represent first mode (e.g. actors)
    • Columns represent second mode (e.g. events)
  • Deriving one-mode network from two-mode network.
    • Mapping the "hidden networks" implied by two-mode network (under assumptions above) can be highly significant
    • One-mode network derived from rows (e.g. actors)
    • One-mode network derived from columns (e.g. events)
  • Representing two-mode networks with lists of edges
    • Simply listing edges may violate condition that actors can't link to actors, or events to events
    • Thus we must also provide a means of identifying which vertices are rows (or, conversely, which vertices are columns)

Applications: creating and manipulating two mode networks

  • Two-mode network in Pajek
    • Vertex command is followed by two numbers: (a) the number of vertices; (b) the number of rows (whether actors or events)
    • When Pajek sees two numbers instead of one, it generates an affiliation partition to match.
  • Using txt2pajek to generate a sample two-mode network
  • Corporate interlocks in Scotland, 1904-5.
    • Early 20th century: joint stock companies began to form
      • owned by shareholders
      • represented by boards of directors
    • Interlocking directorates linked the companies (and companies linked the directors)
    • Data: 136 multiple directors for 108 largest joint stock companies, of various types:
      • non-financial firms (64)
      • banks (8)
      • insurance companies (14)
      • investment and property companies (22)
    • Partition: indicates industry type
  1. oil & mining
  2. railway
  3. engineering & steel
  4. electricity & chemicals
  5. domestic products
  6. banks
  7. insurance
  8. investment
  • Vector: indicates total capital in 1,000 pounds sterling

Line values