IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v80y2009i2d10.1007_s11192-008-2065-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational and dynamical aspects of a small network with two distinct communities: Neo-creationists vs. Evolution Defenders

Author

Listed:
  • Anselmo Garcia Cantú

    (Université de Liége)

  • Marcel Ausloos

    (Université de Liége)

Abstract

Social impacts and degrees of organization inherent to opinion formation for interacting agents on networks present interesting questions of general interest from physics to sociology. We present a quantitative analysis of a case implying an evolving small size network, i.e. that inherent to the ongoing debate between modern creationists (most are Intelligent Design (ID) proponents (IDP) and Darwin’s theory of Evolution Defenders (DED)). This study is carried out by analyzing the structural properties of the citation network unfolded in the recent decades by publishing works belonging to members of the two communities. With the aim of capturing the dynamical aspects of the interaction between the IDP and DED groups, we focus on two key quantities, namely, the degree of activity of each group and the corresponding degree of impact on the intellectual community at large. A representative measure of the former is provided by the rate of production of publications (RPP), whilst the latter can be assimilated to the rate of increase in citations (RIC). These quantities are determined, respectively, by the slope of the time series obtained for the number of publications accumulated per year and by the slope of a similar time series obtained for the corresponding citations. The results indicate that in this case, the dynamics can be seen as geared by triggered or damped competition. The network is a specific example of marked heterogeneity in exchange of information activity in and between the communities, particularly demonstrated through the nodes having a high connectivity degree, i.e. opinion leaders.

Suggested Citation

  • Anselmo Garcia Cantú & Marcel Ausloos, 2009. "Organizational and dynamical aspects of a small network with two distinct communities: Neo-creationists vs. Evolution Defenders," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 457-472, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:80:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-008-2065-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-2065-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-008-2065-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-008-2065-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    2. Pȩkalski, Andrzej, 2002. "Evolution of population in changing conditions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 314(1), pages 114-119.
    3. Pȩkalski, Andrzej, 1998. "A model of population dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 325-335.
    4. Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron & Józef Sznajd, 2000. "Opinion Evolution In Closed Community," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(06), pages 1157-1165.
    5. Lixin Chen & Ronald Rousseau, 2008. "Q-measures for binary divided networks: Bridges between German and English institutes in publications of the Journal of Fluid Mechanics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 57-69, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ausloos, Marcel, 2012. "Econophysics of a religious cult: The Antoinists in Belgium [1920–2000]," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 391(11), pages 3190-3197.
    2. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2011. "Simulations of opinion changes in scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 233-250, May.
    3. Galam, Serge, 2010. "Public debates driven by incomplete scientific data: The cases of evolution theory, global warming and H1N1 pandemic influenza," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(17), pages 3619-3631.
    4. Marcel Ausloos, 2013. "Econophysics: Comments on a Few Applications, Successes, Methods and Models," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 2(2), pages 101-115, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    2. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    3. Si, Xia-Meng & Wang, Wen-Dong & Ma, Yan, 2016. "Role of propagation thresholds in sentiment-based model of opinion evolution with information diffusion," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 451(C), pages 549-559.
    4. Karataieva, Tatiana & Koshmanenko, Volodymyr & Krawczyk, Małgorzata J. & Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2019. "Mean field model of a game for power," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 525(C), pages 535-547.
    5. AskariSichani, Omid & Jalili, Mahdi, 2015. "Influence maximization of informed agents in social networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 254(C), pages 229-239.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    7. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Ma, Yaofei & Yang, Chen, 2015. "Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in hierarchically formal organization," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 916-924.
    8. Quanbo Zha & Gang Kou & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Xia Chen & Cong-Cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2020. "Opinion dynamics in finance and business: a literature review and research opportunities," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Benjamin Cabrera & Björn Ross & Daniel Röchert & Felix Brünker & Stefan Stieglitz, 2021. "The influence of community structure on opinion expression: an agent-based model," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1331-1355, November.
    10. Martins, André C.R. & Pereira, Carlos de B. & Vicente, Renato, 2009. "An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(15), pages 3225-3232.
    11. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2006. "Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10.
    12. Qian, Shen & Liu, Yijun & Galam, Serge, 2015. "Activeness as a key to counter democratic balance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 432(C), pages 187-196.
    13. Melatagia Yonta, Paulin & Ndoundam, René, 2009. "Opinion dynamics using majority functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 223-244, March.
    14. Verma, Gunjan & Swami, Ananthram & Chan, Kevin, 2014. "The impact of competing zealots on opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 395(C), pages 310-331.
    15. Calvelli, Matheus & Crokidakis, Nuno & Penna, Thadeu J.P., 2019. "Phase transitions and universality in the Sznajd model with anticonformity," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 513(C), pages 518-523.
    16. Lucas Böttcher & Hans J Herrmann & Hans Gersbach, 2018. "Clout, activists and budget: The road to presidency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Jalili, Mahdi, 2013. "Social power and opinion formation in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(4), pages 959-966.
    18. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Post-Print hal-00623966, HAL.
    19. Han, Wenchen & Gao, Shun & Huang, Changwei & Yang, Junzhong, 2022. "Non-consensus states in circular opinion model with repulsive interaction," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    20. Le Pira, Michela & Inturri, Giuseppe & Ignaccolo, Matteo & Pluchino, Alessandro & Rapisarda, Andrea, 2017. "Finding shared decisions in stakeholder networks: An agent-based approach," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 466(C), pages 277-287.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:80:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-008-2065-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.