混合指数随机图模型中的尺度偏差

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Social Networks Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2023.02.003
Scott W. Duxbury, Jenna Wertsching
{"title":"混合指数随机图模型中的尺度偏差","authors":"Scott W. Duxbury,&nbsp;Jenna Wertsching","doi":"10.1016/j.socnet.2023.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Researchers often use pooled exponential random graph models (ERGM) to analyze samples of networks. However, pooled ERGM—here, understood to include both meta-regression and combined estimation on a stacked adjacency matrix—may be biased if there is heterogeneity in the latent error variance (‘scaling’) of each lower-level model. This study explores the implications of scaling for pooled ERGM analysis. We illustrate that scaling can produce bias in pooled ERGM coefficients that is more severe than in single-network ERGM and we introduce two methods for reducing this bias. Simulations suggest that scaling bias can be large enough to alter conclusions about pooled ERGM coefficient size, significance, and direction, but can be substantially reduced by estimating the marginal effect within a block diagonal or random effects meta-regression framework. We illustrate each method in an empirical example using Add Health data on 15 in-school friendship networks. Results from the application illustrate that many substantive conclusions vary depending on choice of pooling method and interpretational quantity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48353,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks","volume":"74 ","pages":"Pages 19-30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scaling bias in pooled exponential random graph models\",\"authors\":\"Scott W. Duxbury,&nbsp;Jenna Wertsching\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socnet.2023.02.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Researchers often use pooled exponential random graph models (ERGM) to analyze samples of networks. However, pooled ERGM—here, understood to include both meta-regression and combined estimation on a stacked adjacency matrix—may be biased if there is heterogeneity in the latent error variance (‘scaling’) of each lower-level model. This study explores the implications of scaling for pooled ERGM analysis. We illustrate that scaling can produce bias in pooled ERGM coefficients that is more severe than in single-network ERGM and we introduce two methods for reducing this bias. Simulations suggest that scaling bias can be large enough to alter conclusions about pooled ERGM coefficient size, significance, and direction, but can be substantially reduced by estimating the marginal effect within a block diagonal or random effects meta-regression framework. We illustrate each method in an empirical example using Add Health data on 15 in-school friendship networks. Results from the application illustrate that many substantive conclusions vary depending on choice of pooling method and interpretational quantity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Networks\",\"volume\":\"74 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 19-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Networks\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873323000126\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Networks","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873323000126","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

研究人员经常使用混合指数随机图模型(ERGM)来分析网络样本。然而,如果每个较低级别模型的潜在误差方差(“尺度”)存在异质性,则合并ERGM(此处被理解为包括元回归和对堆叠邻接矩阵的组合估计)可能会有偏差。本研究探讨了缩放对合并ERGM分析的影响。我们说明了缩放可以在合并ERGM系数中产生比单网络ERGM更严重的偏差,并且我们介绍了两种减少这种偏差的方法。模拟表明,标度偏差可以大到足以改变关于合并ERGM系数大小、显著性和方向的结论,但可以通过在块对角或随机效应元回归框架内估计边际效应来显著降低。我们在一个实证例子中使用了15个校内友谊网络的Add Health数据来说明每种方法。应用结果表明,许多实质性结论因汇集方法的选择和解释量的不同而不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scaling bias in pooled exponential random graph models

Researchers often use pooled exponential random graph models (ERGM) to analyze samples of networks. However, pooled ERGM—here, understood to include both meta-regression and combined estimation on a stacked adjacency matrix—may be biased if there is heterogeneity in the latent error variance (‘scaling’) of each lower-level model. This study explores the implications of scaling for pooled ERGM analysis. We illustrate that scaling can produce bias in pooled ERGM coefficients that is more severe than in single-network ERGM and we introduce two methods for reducing this bias. Simulations suggest that scaling bias can be large enough to alter conclusions about pooled ERGM coefficient size, significance, and direction, but can be substantially reduced by estimating the marginal effect within a block diagonal or random effects meta-regression framework. We illustrate each method in an empirical example using Add Health data on 15 in-school friendship networks. Results from the application illustrate that many substantive conclusions vary depending on choice of pooling method and interpretational quantity.

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
Social Networks
Social Networks Multiple-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
12.90%
发文量
118
期刊介绍: Social Networks is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly. It provides a common forum for representatives of anthropology, sociology, history, social psychology, political science, human geography, biology, economics, communications science and other disciplines who share an interest in the study of the empirical structure of social relations and associations that may be expressed in network form. It publishes both theoretical and substantive papers. Critical reviews of major theoretical or methodological approaches using the notion of networks in the analysis of social behaviour are also included, as are reviews of recent books dealing with social networks and social structure.
期刊最新文献
Why distinctiveness centrality is distinctive Editorial Board How many friends do youth nominate? A meta-analysis of gender, age, and geographic differences in average outdegree centrality A stopping rule for randomly sampling bipartite networks with fixed degree sequences Multilevel integrated healthcare: The evaluation of Project ECHO® networks to integrate children’s healthcare in Australia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1