A nontrivial interplay between triadic closure, preferential, and anti-preferential attachment: New insights from online data

doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2023.100248

Эндаумент фонд ТГУ!
Впиши своё имя в историю университета
- Сделать пожертвование -

Add to "Quick Collection"

Description	Size	Format
A nontrivial interplay between triadic closure, preferential, and anti-preferential attachment: New insights from online data	8 MB	Adobe Acrobat PDF	Read	Download
DOI Доступ к ресурсу на сайте издателя			10.1016/j.osnem.2023.100248

Title: A nontrivial interplay between triadic closure, preferential, and anti-preferential attachment: New insights from online data
Creator: Kozitsin, Ivan V.
|
Gubanov, Alexander V.
|
Sayfulin, Eduard R.
|
Goiko, Vyacheslav L.
Date: 2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.osnem.2023.100248
Description: This paper presents an analysis of a temporal network that describes the social connections of a large-scale (∼30,000) sample of online social network users, inhabitants of a fixed city. We tested how the main network formation determinants—transitivity, preferential attachment, and social selection—contribute to network evolution. We obtained that tie appearing and tie removing events are governed by different combinations of mechanisms: whereas the structure of the network is responsible for the formation of new ties, nodal nonstructural characteristics “decide” whether a tie will continue to exist. Next, our findings show that only one network formation mechanism, gender selectivity, has a significant impact on both tie appearing and tie removing processes. What is interesting, the effect of gender selectivity is most notable for low-degree vertices. Besides this, our analysis revealed that opinion selectivity appears to be a noticeable (but not very important) factor only in the case of tie removing, whereas its contribution to tie appearing is elusive. Our findings suggest that nodes’ activity is a crucial factor of network evolution—the majority of tie removing events can be explained by the age-based activity mechanism. Finally, we report that transitivity and preferential attachment do govern network evolution. However, there are two important details: (i) their zone of influence is restricted primarily by tie appearing and (ii) the preferential attachment mechanism is replaced by the anti-preferential attachment rule if the number of common peers is greater than zero.