Structural Invariants in Individuals Language Use: The “Ego Network” of Words
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), ISSN: 1611-3349, Vol: 12467 LNCS, Page: 267-282
2020
- 2Citations
- 4Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
The cognitive constraints that humans exhibit in their social interactions have been extensively studied by anthropologists, who have highlighted their regularities across different types of social networks. We postulate that similar regularities can be found in other cognitive processes, such as those involving language production. In order to provide preliminary evidence for this claim, we analyse a dataset containing tweets of a heterogeneous group of Twitter users (regular users and professional writers). Leveraging a methodology similar to the one used to uncover the well-established social cognitive constraints, we find that a concentric layered structure (which we call ego network of words, in analogy to the ego network of social relationships) very well captures how individuals organise the words they use. The size of the layers in this structure regularly grows (approximately 2–3 times with respect to the previous one) when moving outwards, and the two penultimate external layers consistently account for approximately 60% and 30% of the used words (the outermost layer contains 100% of the words), irrespective of the number of the total number of layers of the user.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85093096977&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_20; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_20; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_20; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_20; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_20
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know