A key node centrality measure in networks is closeness centrality (Freeman, 1978; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). It is defined as the inverse of farness, which in turn, is the sum of distances to all other nodes. As the distance between nodes in disconnected components of a network is infinite, this measure cannot be applied to networks with disconnected components (Opsahl et al., 2010; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). This post highlights a possible work-around, which allows the measure to be applied to these networks and at the same time maintain the original idea behind the measure.
Similar to the motivation of the global clustering coefficient that I proposed in Clustering in two-mode networks, the local clustering coefficient is biased if applied to a projection of a two-mode network. It is biased in the sense that the randomly expected value is not obtained on the projection of a random two-mode network. To overcome this methodological bias, I redefine the local clustering coefficient for two-mode networks. The new coefficient is a mix between the global clustering coefficient for two-mode networks and Barrat’s (2004) local coefficient for a weighted one-mode network. The coefficient is tested on Davis’ (1940) Southern Women dataset.
This post explores the relationship between node degree and node strength in an online social network. In the online social network, heterogeneity in nodes’ average tie weight across different levels of degree had been reported. Although degree and average tie weight are significantly correlated, this post argues for the similarity of degree and node strength. In particular, high pair-wise correlation between degree and strength is found. In addition, power-law exponents of degree distributions and strength distribution are reported. The exponents are strikingly similar, in fact, they are almost identical.
Many network dataset are by definition two-mode networks. Yet, few network measures can be directly applied to them. Therefore, two-mode networks are often projected onto one-mode networks by selecting a node set and linking two nodes if they were connected to common nodes in the two-mode network. This process has a major impact on the level of clustering in the network. If three or more nodes are connected to a common node in the two-mode network, the nodes form a fully-connected clique consisting of one or more triangles in the one-mode projection. Moreover, it produces a number of modeling issues. For example, even a one-mode projection of a random two-mode network with same number of nodes and ties will have a higher clustering coefficient than the randomly expected value. This post represents an attempt to overcome this issue by redefining the clustering coefficient so that it can be calculated directly on the two-mode structure. I illustrate the benefits of such an approach by applying it to two-mode networks from four different domains: event attendance, scientific collaboration, interlocking directorates, and online communication.
tnet is a package written in R that can calculate weighted social network measures. Almost all of the ideas posted on this blog are related to weighted networks as, I believe, taking into consideration tie weights enables us to uncover and study interesting network properties. Not only are few social network measures applicable to weighted networks, but there is also a lack of software programmes that can analyse this type of networks. In fact, there are no open-source programmes. This hinders the use and development of weighted measures. tnet represents a first step towards creating such a programme. Through this platform, weighted network measures can easily be applied, and new measures easily implemented and distributed.
The content of this post has been integrated in the tnet manual, see Software.
In this post, I extend the Weighted Rich-club Effect by suggesting and testing a different null model for the scientific collaboration network (Newman, 2001). This network is a two-mode network, which becomes an undirected one-mode network when projected. In the paper, we compared the observed weighted rich-club coefficient with the one found on random networks. The random networks were constructed by a null model defined for directed networks when prominence was based on node strength. Therefore, we created a directed network from the undirected scientific collaboration network by linking connected nodes with two directed ties that had the same weight. The null model consisted in reshuffling the tie weights attached to out-going ties for each node. However, this local reshuffling broke the weight symmetry of the two directed ties between connected nodes. The null model proposed in this post is based on the randomisation of the two-mode network before projecting it onto a one-mode network. By randomising before projecting, we are able to randomise a network while keeping the symmetry of weights.