[statnet_help] DGWESP/DGWDSP terms with node attributes

Steven Goodreau goodreau at uw.edu
Mon May 11 19:37:48 PDT 2020


Hi Marc -

I don't know of anyone who has coded those up (that I can think of -
another member of the statnet team, correct me if I'm wrong).  They seem
like they would be quite useful additions.

Just FYI, the latest versions of our tutorials for coding your own terms
are at:

https://github.com/statnet/Workshops/wiki

down at the bottom.

Best,
Steve


On 4/23/2020 11:49 PM, Marc Sarazin wrote:

>

> Dear statnetters,

>

> I hope you are all well and staying safe.

>

> In a nutshell: has anyone come up with versions of directed

> GWESP/GWDSP terms that only take into account nodes with the same

> values for a categorical attribute (e.g. à la ttriple(attr =

> ”attribute”, diff = TRUE))?

>

> The longer version: I am attempting to model the presence of different

> kinds of triangles among nodes that share the same categorical

> attribute in my network, given the general presence of triangular

> structures. I have tried fitting models with triangle or ttriple terms

> specifically for the attribute (e.g. triangle(attr = ”attribute”, diff

> = TRUE), alongside a general directed GWESP term (path closure

> configuration, with fixed decay). Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly)

> the models don’t come close to converging. The same model without the

> triangle/ttriple terms fits perfectly well.

>

> My suspicion is that this is due to the non-convergence issues

> encountered with Markov dependence terms. Therefore, I’d like to use a

> GWESP term that counts only edgewise shared partners with the same

> nodal attribute instead, but this term isn’t currently available. I

> was wondering then if anyone had developed such an attribute-based

> GWESP term? Eventually I’ll want to look at closure processes as

> well—so has anyone equally developed an equivalent GWDSP term? Or are

> there known problems that make developing such terms difficult?

> Alternatively, has anyone come up with workarounds to using such terms

> (that don’t involve splitting the network according to the attribute

> in question—which is of course not ideal)? For info, my attribute

> divides the nodes of my network evenly into 5 groups (it is based on

> quintiles of a continuous quantitative attribute)

>

> Very best wishes,

>

> Marc

>

> --

>

> Dr Marc Sarazin

>

> Postdoctoral Research Fellow

>

> GIRSEF, UCLouvain (University of Louvain/Université catholique de Louvain)

>

> +32 (0)10479446 | Project Website <http://www.teacherscareers.eu/>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> statnet_help mailing list

> statnet_help at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/statnet_help


--
*****************************************************************
Steven M. Goodreau / Professor / Dept. of Anthropology
Physical address: Denny Hall M236
Mailing address: Campus Box 353100 / 4216 Memorial Way NE
Univ. of Washington / Seattle WA 98195
1-206-685-3870 (phone) /1-206-543-3285 (fax)
http://faculty.washington.edu/goodreau
*****************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/statnet_help/attachments/20200511/91452e71/attachment.html>


More information about the statnet_help mailing list