在社会网络分析中,我应该使用哪个中心性指数?顶层中心性的理论差异与实证相似性

D. Iacobucci, Rebecca McBride, Deidre Popovich, Maria Rouziou
{"title":"在社会网络分析中,我应该使用哪个中心性指数?顶层中心性的理论差异与实证相似性","authors":"D. Iacobucci, Rebecca McBride, Deidre Popovich, Maria Rouziou","doi":"10.2458/V8I2.22991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research examines four frequently used centrality indices—degree, closeness, betweenness, and eigenvectors—to understand the extent to which their clear theoretical distinctions are reflected in differences in empirical performance. Even for stylized networks in which one centrality index may seem more relevant than the others, the four indices are frequently highly correlated. This result can be interpreted as good news: it does not diminish the conceptual distinctions, yet it suggests the indices are rather robust, yielding similar information about actors’ positions in networks, which can be reassuring given their widespread use by applied network analysts who may not appreciate the theoretically distinct origins and definitions. This research also compares computational speed across the centrality indices as another practical element that may help determine the choice of centrality index.","PeriodicalId":90602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2458/V8I2.22991","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Social Network Analysis, Which Centrality Index Should I Use?: Theoretical Differences and Empirical Similarities among Top Centralities\",\"authors\":\"D. Iacobucci, Rebecca McBride, Deidre Popovich, Maria Rouziou\",\"doi\":\"10.2458/V8I2.22991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research examines four frequently used centrality indices—degree, closeness, betweenness, and eigenvectors—to understand the extent to which their clear theoretical distinctions are reflected in differences in empirical performance. Even for stylized networks in which one centrality index may seem more relevant than the others, the four indices are frequently highly correlated. This result can be interpreted as good news: it does not diminish the conceptual distinctions, yet it suggests the indices are rather robust, yielding similar information about actors’ positions in networks, which can be reassuring given their widespread use by applied network analysts who may not appreciate the theoretically distinct origins and definitions. This research also compares computational speed across the centrality indices as another practical element that may help determine the choice of centrality index.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2458/V8I2.22991\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2458/V8I2.22991\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/V8I2.22991","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

本研究考察了四种常用的中心性指数——度、接近度、中间度和特征向量——以了解它们的明确理论差异在多大程度上反映在实证表现的差异中。即使对于一个中心性指数似乎比其他指数更相关的程式化网络,这四个指数也经常是高度相关的。这个结果可以被解释为一个好消息:它没有减少概念上的区别,但它表明这些指数相当稳健,产生了关于参与者在网络中的位置的类似信息,这可以让人放心,因为它们被应用网络分析师广泛使用,他们可能不欣赏理论上不同的起源和定义。本研究还比较了中心性指数的计算速度作为另一个实际因素,可能有助于确定中心性指数的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In Social Network Analysis, Which Centrality Index Should I Use?: Theoretical Differences and Empirical Similarities among Top Centralities
This research examines four frequently used centrality indices—degree, closeness, betweenness, and eigenvectors—to understand the extent to which their clear theoretical distinctions are reflected in differences in empirical performance. Even for stylized networks in which one centrality index may seem more relevant than the others, the four indices are frequently highly correlated. This result can be interpreted as good news: it does not diminish the conceptual distinctions, yet it suggests the indices are rather robust, yielding similar information about actors’ positions in networks, which can be reassuring given their widespread use by applied network analysts who may not appreciate the theoretically distinct origins and definitions. This research also compares computational speed across the centrality indices as another practical element that may help determine the choice of centrality index.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信