We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Machine learning has revolutionized many fields, including science, healthcare, and business. It is also widely used in network data analysis. This chapter provides an overview of machine learning methods and how they can be applied to network data. Machine learning can be used to clean, process, and analyze network data, as well as make predictions about networks and network attributes. Methods that transform networks into meaningful representations are especially useful for specific network prediction tasks, such as classifying nodes and predicting links. The challenges of using machine learning with network data include recognizing data leakage and detecting dataset shift. As with all machine learning, effective use of machine learning on networks depends on practicing good data hygiene when evaluating a predictive model’s performance.
This chapter seeks to resolve the puzzle of people’s low accuracy in perceptions of local network properties versus their much higher accuracy in perceiving global network structures. We argue that this puzzle is more apparent than real because humans rely on layers of relational schemata—mental structures dictating how social agents ought to be structurally connected—to mentally organize their social contacts. In other words, differences in accuracy reflect differences in the schemata used by the individual to mentally represent social network information at varying levels (e.g., dyadic level, triadic level, and community level). Individuals vary in their schemata repertoire, and their tendencies to adopt certain schemata in a given situation or context, so the specific set of schemata that individuals activate varies in its sufficiency and appropriateness for fully representing the network structure. We define these individual differences as network representation capacities, and review and compare four prominent approaches to quantifying them: the error paradigm, the free-recall paradigm, the structural learning paradigm and the statistical learning paradigm. We conclude by inviting researchers to reconsider the relations between cognition and egocentric networks, as well as the role of network analysis in analyzing, describing and prescribing social relational behavior.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.