↓ Skip to main content

Core-like groups result in invalidation of identifying super-spreader by k-shell decomposition

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Core-like groups result in invalidation of identifying super-spreader by k-shell decomposition
Published in
Scientific Reports, May 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep09602
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Liu, Ming Tang, Tao Zhou, Younghae Do

Abstract

Identifying the most influential spreaders is an important issue in understanding and controlling spreading processes on complex networks. Recent studies showed that nodes located in the core of a network as identified by the k-shell decomposition are the most influential spreaders. However, through a great deal of numerical simulations, we observe that not in all real networks do nodes in high shells are very influential: in some networks the core nodes are the most influential which we call true core, while in others nodes in high shells, even the innermost core, are not good spreaders which we call core-like group. By analyzing the k-core structure of the networks, we find that the true core of a network links diversely to the shells of the network, while the core-like group links very locally within the group. For nodes in the core-like group, the k-shell index cannot reflect their location importance in the network. We further introduce a measure based on the link diversity of shells to effectively distinguish the true core and core-like group, and identify core-like groups throughout the networks. Our findings help to better understand the structural features of real networks and influential nodes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 28%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 23 34%
Engineering 8 12%
Physics and Astronomy 6 9%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Mathematics 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 21 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2014.
All research outputs
#10,278,977
of 18,245,787 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#46,025
of 98,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,717
of 217,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,245,787 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 217,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them