↓ Skip to main content

The geometric nature of weights in real complex networks

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The geometric nature of weights in real complex networks
Published in
Nature Communications, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms14103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antoine Allard, M. Ángeles Serrano, Guillermo García-Pérez, Marián Boguñá

Abstract

The topology of many real complex networks has been conjectured to be embedded in hidden metric spaces, where distances between nodes encode their likelihood of being connected. Besides of providing a natural geometrical interpretation of their complex topologies, this hypothesis yields the recipe for sustainable Internet's routing protocols, sheds light on the hierarchical organization of biochemical pathways in cells, and allows for a rich characterization of the evolution of international trade. Here we present empirical evidence that this geometric interpretation also applies to the weighted organization of real complex networks. We introduce a very general and versatile model and use it to quantify the level of coupling between their topology, their weights and an underlying metric space. Our model accurately reproduces both their topology and their weights, and our results suggest that the formation of connections and the assignment of their magnitude are ruled by different processes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 101 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 29%
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 12 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Professor 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 10 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 21 20%
Engineering 12 11%
Mathematics 11 10%
Computer Science 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 19 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#821,133
of 15,210,119 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#11,303
of 28,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,406
of 339,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#25
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,210,119 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 48.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 339,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.