↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Network ‘Small-World-Ness’: A Quantitative Method for Determining Canonical Network Equivalence

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
897 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
Title
Network ‘Small-World-Ness’: A Quantitative Method for Determining Canonical Network Equivalence
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0002051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark D. Humphries, Kevin Gurney

Abstract

Many technological, biological, social, and information networks fall into the broad class of 'small-world' networks: they have tightly interconnected clusters of nodes, and a shortest mean path length that is similar to a matched random graph (same number of nodes and edges). This semi-quantitative definition leads to a categorical distinction ('small/not-small') rather than a quantitative, continuous grading of networks, and can lead to uncertainty about a network's small-world status. Moreover, systems described by small-world networks are often studied using an equivalent canonical network model--the Watts-Strogatz (WS) model. However, the process of establishing an equivalent WS model is imprecise and there is a pressing need to discover ways in which this equivalence may be quantified.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 897 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 2%
United Kingdom 12 1%
Germany 9 1%
Netherlands 5 <1%
France 4 <1%
China 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Korea, Republic of 3 <1%
Other 19 2%
Unknown 821 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 229 26%
Researcher 149 17%
Student > Master 119 13%
Student > Bachelor 75 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 6%
Other 134 15%
Unknown 141 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 121 13%
Computer Science 101 11%
Neuroscience 95 11%
Psychology 85 9%
Engineering 79 9%
Other 225 25%
Unknown 191 21%