data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f2b1/8f2b12cfc82d633b374d37278676718d250269e1" alt=""
In all my posts on centrality, I never actually described a mathematical formula for calculating it. There are quite a few reasonable ways to define centrality. See this post for links to a few of them. We see above that Cross's Braintrust Keynote describes centrality as the "average # of relationships per person." Unfortunately, this notion of centrality has nothing at all to do with what other people mean when they say "centrality."
First, a preliminary clarification: "Centrality" is most commonly used to describe a single node in a network, but it is also used to describe a global property of an entire network (much like "centralization" in the bottom row of the Braintrust Keynote table above). So we should be clear that "average # of relationships per person" is a global property of an entire network.
With that in mind, observe the following two networks that have exactly the same number of nodes, exactly the same number of edges, and hence exactly the same value of "centrality" or "average # of relationships per person":
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/71df8/71df8e8b25c34fbb0fb1777e6861f86380b77395" alt=""
It's a shame to equate "centrality" and "average # of relationships per person." They are two of my most favorite network metrics. I have devoted enough recent bandwidth to centrality to make clear my affinity for that metric. Soon, I will explain why I like "average # of relationships per person" as an alternative to density (top row of the Braintrust Keynote table) that is much less susceptible to the network size bias noted by Kathleen Carley.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2008 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.
No comments:
Post a Comment