2010
DOI: 10.1086/649059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Six Degrees of “Who Cares?”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
19
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Though this paper focuses on friendship network data, the logic of the "unfriending" problem applies to estimates of peer effects in any longitudinal network data in which homophily plays a significant role in tie dissolution. For instance, Grannis (2010) Going forward, more research is clearly needed on models of peer influence in observational data. For instance, the actor-based model of Steglich, Snijders and Pearson (2010) attempts to account for many of the concerns described above.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though this paper focuses on friendship network data, the logic of the "unfriending" problem applies to estimates of peer effects in any longitudinal network data in which homophily plays a significant role in tie dissolution. For instance, Grannis (2010) Going forward, more research is clearly needed on models of peer influence in observational data. For instance, the actor-based model of Steglich, Snijders and Pearson (2010) attempts to account for many of the concerns described above.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Includ-ing stale user-user interactions in the network mistakenly creates an inaccurate portrayal of the current state of the system; this is typically referred to as the "unfriending problem" [26]. Not only will network statistics such as the number of nodes, average degree, maximum degree and proportion of nodes in the giant component be artificially inflated due to superfluous, no-longer-active links [26,33], but the degree distribution will also be distorted. Kwak et al [15] found that the degree distribution for a Twitter follower network deviated from a power law distribution due to an overabundance of high degree nodes resulting from an accumulation of "dead-weight" in the network.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Note 18 Although it is important to note that under no truncation the researcher response is not varied, as there is nothing to try and "fill in." that there are also analytical solutions showing if there is a giant component in the network; Grannis, 2010.) The distance results are more heterogeneous, dependent on both the level of skew in the network and the level of truncation in the survey.…”
Section: Results Part 1: Researcher Does Nothing In Response To Degrementioning
confidence: 99%