ArticlePloS one2018
Manipulating concept spread using concept relationships.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The propagation of concepts in a population of agents is a form of influence spread, which can be modelled as a cascade from a set of initially activated individuals. The study of such influence cascades, in particular the identification of influential individuals, has a wide range of applications including epidemic control, viral marketing and the study of social norms. In real-world environments there may be many concepts spreading and interacting. These interactions can affect the spread of a given concept, either boosting it and allowing it to spread further, or inhibiting it and limiting its capability to spread. Previous work does not consider how the interactions between concepts affect concept spread. Taking concept interactions into consideration allows for indirect concept manipulation, meaning that we can affect concepts we are not able to directly control. In this paper, we consider the problem of indirect concept manipulation, and propose heuristics for indirectly boosting or inhibiting concept spread in environments where concepts interact. We define a framework that allows for the interactions between any number of concepts to be represented, and present a heuristic that aims to identify important influence paths for a given target concept in order to manipulate its spread. We compare the performance of this heuristic, called maximum probable gain, against established heuristics for manipulating influence spread.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.