| Title |
Reconstructing Archaeological Networks with Structural Holes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10816-017-9335-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Viviana Amati, Termeh Shafie, Ulrik Brandes |
| Abstract |
Model-based reconstruction is an approach to infer network structures where they cannot be observed. For archaeological networks, several models based on assumptions concerning distance among sites, site size, or costs and benefits have been proposed to infer missing ties. Since these assumptions are formulated at a dyadic level, they do not provide means to express dependencies among ties and therefore include less plausible network scenarios. In this paper we investigate the use of network models that explicitly incorporate tie dependence. In particular, we consider exponential random graph models, and show how they can be applied to reconstruct networks coherent with Burt's arguments on closure and structural holes (Burt 2001). The approach is illustrated on data from the Middle Bronze Age in the Aegean. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Ireland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 19 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 10% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,184,606
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#232
of 342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,275
of 312,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.