2018-2019

April 2020

18-20. WTFNS

Workshop on the Frontiers of Network Science is an opportunity for our group to bond over research - some that is more early stage, and some that is better developed. It also allows us to bring leading scholars from the field of Network Science who bring their work to NYUAD. The keynote speakers' talks are open to the NYUAD community.

December 2019

12. TBA (Marc Witte) - 9:00AM-10:15AM, A5-101

Abstract: TBA

November 2019

10. The various contribution of networks to labor-market inequality (Kinga Makovi & Malte Reichelt) - 9:00AM-10:15AM, A5-101

Abstract: The impact of social networks on labor market outcomes is one of the most widely studied questions in economic sociology, and works produced in this line of inquiry are among the most cited pieces in the social sciences. Yet, however, it is unclear how exactly networks contribute and at which points in the job search process networks matter to what degree. We develop a general framework of the job search process differentiating between three stages in which social networks should matter. First, one’s network composition will impact the quality of information relevant for the job search. Second, the process of tie-activation, or the decision whom to turn to in one’s social network, will alter what positions one will receive information about. Third, employers’ evaluations of a referral will be relevant in terms of whether a position is offered and the quality of the contract (level of compensation and benefits). To test if and to what degree social networks matter at the three stages of the hiring process and if social groups are affected differently, we draw on complete social security data from the city of Munich.

24. CITIES Symposium - 9:AM-5:00PM, NYU Abu Dhabi Conference Center (A6)

Details

October 2018

13. An Assortativity Analysis of Co-Authorship Networks and Authors’ Swing among Various Types of Open Access of Sources of Publications on “Open Science” from 1999 to 2018 (Moses Boudourides) - 8:30AM-9:30AM, A5-101

Abstract: Typically, indexing services of scientific publications provide a variety of relational and attribute datasets and as such they are often subjected to a variety of social network analyses. Here, we are focusing on the time-dependent bipartite graph of authors and sources (journals etc.), where the former publish their contributions. Moreover, we are interested in the Open-Access (OA) type of sources (at the time of publication). A first step in the analysis of such a dataset often is to aggregate over time (typically over one or more years, during which the OA type of a sources might remains the same) deriving thus a number of weighted graphs of authors vs. sources for each time period. Subsequently, one may project such a bipartite graph over the mode of authors in order to obtain the so-called co-authorship graphs among individual authors. As for the OA type of publications, we are partitioning the set of authors according to whether publish in sources having a combined or mixed OA type, which includes as values/categories all possible combinations among the four main OA types: paywalled, bronze, gold and green. Apparently, this is a categorical attribute of authors in the co-authorship graph such that, to each author, there corresponds a unique mixed OA type, corresponding to sources of all publications in which this author has published. Furthermore, to measure assortativity (or mixing) of the co-authorship graph, one might use Mark Newman's attribute assortativity coefficient for the mixed OA type as a categorical attribute. Furthermore, for any two successive periods, each one including a number of years, one may count the authors' swing among all existing categories of the attribute of mixed OA type. Thus, one may find how many authors who have published in the mixed OA type i in the first period are publishing in the mixed OA type j in the next period. Knowledge of the swing of authors among mixed OA types shows which combinations of OA types tend to draw the interest of the majority of authors whose publications are included in the collected dataset. In our case of "Open Science" publications, we find that the mixed OA type attribute assortativity coefficient of authors in the co-authorship graph is moderately high during the period from 1999 to 2018, while it further drops during the subsequent period from 2012 to 2018, implying that the paywalled "domination" appears to weaken in more recent years and though a considerable number of authors still prefer to publish in paywalled sources, a good number of them funnels their publications towards mixed combinations of gold and green types of OA.
Slides: https://speakerdeck.com/mboudour/an-assortativity-analysis-of-co-authorship-networks-and-authors-swing-among-various-types-of-open-access-of-sources-of-publications-on-open-science-from-1999-to-2018

27. The Political Ideologies of Organized Interests: Large-Scale, Social Network Estimation of Interest Group Ideal Points (Aaron Kaufman) - 8:30AM-9:30AM, A5-101

Abstract: A major limitation of large-scale studies of interest group influence is the inability to map them in ideological space. Given the prevalence of these actors across branches of government, such a measurement omission makes differentiating competing claims of the determinants of many political outcomes difficult, if not impossible. We extend the reach of ideal point estimation to include all organizations that have drafted amicus curiae briefs before the Supreme Court, encompassing nearly 13,000 unique interest groups across 95 years, making this the largest and longest measure of interest group ideologies to date. To do so, we use exact matching and hand-validated fuzzy string matching to identify nearly 3,000 amicus curiae organizations who have given political donations, then impute ideal points for the remaining organizations based on the network structure of amicus cosigning. We use cross-validation both to establish internal validity and, ultimately, as the estimated ideal points. The resulting Interest Group Network Scores (IGNet Scores) conform to conventional expectations and provide insights into the dynamics of interest group macro-ideology, the ideological issue domains and collection of strange bedfellows in cases before the Court, as well as ideological differences between donor and non-donor organizations.

Report abuse