1. N-partite and 2. ntwork redundancy [two issues from March 16]
Loet Leydesdorff
Dear Lucio,
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on March 16. Let us further discuss “relational redundancy”. I worked on the difference between fractional counting at the network level as different from actor attributes in the paper attached. Perhaps, we can further develop this methodology?
Leydesdorff, L., & Park, H. W. (2017). Full and Fractional Counting in Bibliometric Networks. Journal of Informetrics 11(1), 117-200. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.007 [see the attachment]
Let us continue this conversation in a skype conversation. What would be a convenient hour?
As for the bi-modality of documents, see also:
Iina Hellsten, Tobias Opthof & Loet Leydesdorff, N-mode network approach for socio-semantic analysis of scientific publications, Poetics 78 (2020) 101427; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101427
Best. Loet
_______________
"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discusive Knowledge"(Open Access)
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
Caroline Wagner
--
Visit group at https://groups.google.com/g/cogitata?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cogitata+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cogitata/em9d72debd-8526-4c9a-a876-ca916b7d340b%40pc2014.
<joi.17.fractional.pdf>
Loet Leydesdorff
------ Original Message ------
Dear Loet,You anticipated the email that I intended to send you, but this is my teaching time, which makes me very busy and tired. (And since few years it has been accompanied by seasonal allergies, which reduce my productivity...)Well, there are two sets of issues in your thinking that, after mumbling a lot of time (years), I suppose I have solved during the last three months. Still rough: no paper, just written notes, but enough clear.One issue concerns your theory of meaning that you draw from Luhmann. In short, I believe that it must be substantially changed and that the calculation of structural equivalence - indeed, regular equivalence would be better suited - in a communication matrix does not create (or show) meanings, but rather it indicates the degree of shared meanings among nodes (communicators, however they can be defined: this opens indeed another point of discussion as concerning the use and abuse of the concept of second-order). That matrix should not be a squared matrix, but rather a rectangular matrix derived from a bi-partite graph, in which in one dimension there are communicators and in the other meanings already formed (I cannot tell more about it in this email).The other issue concerns the necessity to measure redundancy in network (relational, structural) terms and not in attributive terms, as the Shannon-like measures are. This is necessary to keep all your ideas consistent with the prevailing network approach that you follow (and that I totally share, incidentally). To be clearer, I'm not saying that the Shannon-like measures are useless, but rather that they are not the most appropriate for your theoretical framework. Indeed, the two ontological dimensions of reality - the attributive and the relational - are not fully independent. On the contrary, they interact, and a good theory should capture and combine them. In my experience, this can be well done with agent-based simulation models. Btw, that measure of redundancy is valid to measure the degree of self-organization too.There are a few more small points, like the question of triads and the homophily hypothesis, that can be discussed privately between me and you, because maybe not very interesting for the others.Conversely, the two issues mentioned here would deserve a dedicated collective meeting, because they are substantial not only in your theoretical framework, but for the whole development of socio-cybernetics and social systems science. Indeed, near the end of last meeting I launched this proposal, but neither Jaimie nor Mark followed it.BestLucioLucio Biggiero
Full professor of Organization Science; University of L'Aquila; www.univaq.it
Via Giuseppe Mezzanotte - 67100 L'Aquila (Italy); lucio.b...@univaq.it; www.luciobiggiero.comDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Information and Economics; tel. +39 0862 434861
Cirps, www.cirps.it; AIRS, www.airs.it; IASS, www.scienzasostenibilita.org
PEC: lucio.biggiero@legalmail.it; skype: bertagordon; mobile: (+39)3473672426