没有审查的社会网络测量的实验方法
IF 3.2
Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:我们通过以激励兼容的方式测量完整的网络或使用最多五个链接的截断引出，在意大利高中学生中引出社会网络。我们发现截断低估了高达90%的弱联系，但只适度低估了与强朋友在一起的时间。我们使用模拟来证明，在研究社会学习等通常被认为是沿弱关系运行的现象时，由审查引起的测量误差可能特别显著。然后，我们讨论了修改后的网络激发协议如何能够减少测量误差。本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。
Experimental Methods for Measuring Social Networks without Censoring
Abstract We elicit social networks among students in an Italian high school either by measuring the complete network in an incentive-compatible way or by using a truncated elicitation of at most five links. We find that truncation undercounts weak links by up to 90% but only moderately undercounts the time spent with strong friends. We use simulations to demonstrate that the measurement error induced by censoring might be particularly significant when studying phenomena such as social learning which are often thought to operate along weak ties. We then discuss how a modified network elicitation protocol might be able to reduce measurement error.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。
去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
