↓ 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
1135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
901 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 901 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 825 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 229 25%
Researcher 148 16%
Student > Master 123 14%
Student > Bachelor 75 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 51 6%
Other 136 15%
Unknown 139 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 121 13%
Computer Science 101 11%
Neuroscience 99 11%
Psychology 85 9%
Engineering 79 9%
Other 227 25%
Unknown 189 21%