## Posts tagged ‘weighted networks’

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.

Continue Reading *October 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm*

*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.

*June 12, 2009 at 12:00 am*

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.

*May 29, 2009 at 12:00 am*

I have now completed my Ph.D. at the School of Business and Management of Queen Mary College, University of London. My Ph.D. programme was defined around a number of projects, which drew on, and extended, recent theoretical and methodological advances in network science. The projects that were concerned with weighted networks and longitudinal networks were outlined and critically discussed in my thesis (Structure and Evolution of Weighted Networks). The entire thesis, except Appendix C which is outdated, is available on the Publication > Thesis-page.

**Acknowledgements**

The theme of this thesis is interdependence among elements. In fact, this thesis is not just a product of myself, but also of my interdependence with others. Without the support of a number of people, it would not have been possible to write. It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to express my gratitude to many of them here.

For my academic achievements, I would like to acknowledge the constant support from my supervisors. In particular, I thank Pietro Panzarasa for taking an active part of all the projects I have worked on. I have also had the pleasure to collaborate with people other than my supervisors. I worked with Vittoria Colizza and Jose J. Ramasco on the analysis and method presented in Chapter 2, Kathleen M. Carley on an empirical analysis of the online social network used throughout this thesis, and Martha J. Prevezer on a project related to knowledge transfer in emerging countries. In addition to these direct collaborations, I would also like to thank Filip Agneessens, Sinan Aral, Steve Borgatti, Ronald Burt, Mauro Faccioni Filho, Thomas Friemel, John Skvoretz, and Vanina Torlo for encouragement and helpful advice. In particular, I would like to thank Tom A. B. Snijders and Klaus Nielsen for insightful reading of this thesis and many productive remarks and suggestions. I have also received feedback on my work at a number of conferences and workshops. I would like to express my gratitude to the participants at these.

On a social note, I would like to thank John, Claudius, and my family for their continuing support. Without them I would have lost focus. My peers and the administrative staff have also been a great source of support. In particular, I would like to extend my acknowledgements to Mariusz Jarmuzek, Geraldine Marks, Roland Miller, Jenny Murphy, Cathrine Seierstad, Lorna Soar, Steven Telford, and Eshref Trushin.

*May 15, 2009 at 12:00 am*

This post highlights a number of methods for projecting both binary and weighted two-mode networks (also known as affiliation or bipartite networks) onto weighted one-mode networks. Although I would prefer to analyse two-mode networks in their original form, few methods exist for that purpose. These networks can be transformed into one-mode networks by projecting them (i.e., selecting one set of nodes, and linking two nodes if they are connected to the same node of the other set). Traditionally, ties in the one-mode networks are without weights. By carefully considering multiple ways of projecting two-mode networks onto weighted one-mode networks, we can maintain some of the richness contained within the two-mode structure. This enables researchers to conduct a deeper analysis than if the two-mode structure was completely ignored.

*May 1, 2009 at 12:00 am*

A key assumption of Granovetter’s (1973) Strength of Weak Ties theory is that strong ties are embedded by being part of triangles, whereas weak ties are not embedded by being created towards disconnected nodes. This assumption have been tested by calculating the traditional clustering coefficient on binary networks created with increasing cut-off parameters (i.e., creating a series of binary networks from a weighted network where ties with a weight greater than a cut-off parameter is set to present and the rest removed). Contrarily to theories of strong ties and embeddedness, these methods generally showed that the clustering coefficient decreased as the cut-off parameter increased. However, the binary networks were not comparable with each other as they had a different number of ties. Another way of testing this assumption is to take the ratio between the weighted global clustering coefficient and the traditional coefficient measured on networks where all ties are considered present. Thus, the number of ties is maintained. This post highlights this feature and empirically tests it on a number of publically available weighted network datasets.

The content of this post has been integrated in the

*tnet* manual, see

Clustering.

*April 17, 2009 at 12:00 am*

A paper called “Clustering in Weighted Networks” that I have co-authored will be published in Social Networks. Although many social network measures exist for binary networks and many theories differentiate between strong and weak ties, few measures have been generalised so that they can be applied to weighted networks and retain the information encoded in the weights of ties. One of these measures is the global clustering coefficient, which measures embeddedness or, more specifically, the likelihood of a triplet being closed by a tie so that it forms a triangle. This article proposes a generalisation of this key network measure to weighted networks.

Continue Reading *April 3, 2009 at 12:00 am*

Older Posts
Newer Posts