Advertisement

Diachronic equivalence: an examination of the international news network

  • George A. BarnettEmail author
  • Carlos Algara
Original Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Barabási (Linked: how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. Basic Books, New York, 2014) argues that a significant proportion of nodes can be randomly removed from any scale-free network without it breaking apart. Gao et al. (Nature 530:307–312, 2016) suggest that three additional properties of networks, density, heterogeneity and symmetry, facilitate their ability to adjust their activities to retain functionality in times of stress. Barnett and Jiang (Anal Soc Netw Anal Min 6(1):1–15, 2016) examined the World Wide Web and found that while there are changes in the use of individual websites in this scale-free network due to weekly cycles in viewing specific websites, extreme events as well as other social and cultural events, the overall network is remarkably stable. This paper suggests an additional property, the structural equivalence of nodes that facilitates network stability. Further, it differentiates between two forms of equivalence, synchronous or structural equivalence, and diachronic equivalence, which indicate that two nodes’ position in a network change over time in a similar manner. A subset of the World Wide Web, the international news network is examined to demonstrate these notions. Daily data on the use of the world’s 44 most frequently visited news websites by 118 countries were mined over the 17 month period September 1, 2015 to January 30, 2017, to create a longitudinal two-mode network (countries and websites). The results suggest that individual structurally and diachronic equivalent nodes may be removed from both the international and website networks without impacting how the network changes over time.

Keywords

Diachronic equivalence Structural equivalence International news network Resilience Network dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is sponsored by Office of Naval Research/Minerva (Award # w911nf-15-1-0502-0).

References

  1. Ahmed A, Xing EP (2009) Recovering time-varying networks of dependencies in social and biological studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(29):11878–11883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabási A-L (2014) Linked: how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett GA, Jiang K (2016) Resilience of the World Wide Web: a longitudinal two-mode network. Anal Soc Netw Anal Min 6(1):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-016-0415-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett GA, Park HW (2005) The structure of international Internet hyperlinks and bilateral bandwidth. Ann Telecommun 60:1115–1132Google Scholar
  5. Barnett GA, Park HW (2014) Examining the international Internet using multiple measures: new methods for measuring the communication base of globalized cyberspace. Qual Quant 48:563–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett GA, Jacobson T, Choi Y, Sun S (1996) An examination of the international telecommunications network. J Int Commun 3:19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett GA, Jiang K, Hammond JR (2015) The use of coherencies to examine network evolution and co-evolution. Soc Netw Anal Min.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-015-0297-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnett GA, Xu WW, Chu J, Jiang K, Huh C, Park JY, Park HW (2017) Measuring international relations in social media conversations. Gov Inf Q 34:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92(5):1170–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing social networks. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen R, Erez D, ben-Avraham SD, Havlin D (2000) Resilience of the Internet to random breakdowns. Phys Rev Lett 85(21):4626–4628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faloutsos M, Faloutsos P, Faloutsos C (1999) On power-law relationships of the Internet topology. Comput Commun Rev 29:251CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández A, Gómez S (2008) Solving non-uniqueness in agglomerative hierarchical clustering using multidendrograms. J Classif 25(1):43–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-008-9004-x MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao J, Barzel B, Barabási A-L (2016) Universal resilience patterns in complex networks. Nature 530:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7821–7826MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottman JM (1979) Time-series analysis of continuous data in dyads. In: Lamb ME, Suomi SJ, Stephenson GR (eds) Social interaction analysis: methodological issues. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiang K (2014) International student flows between Asia, Australia, and Russia: a network. Anal J Contemp East Asia 13(1):83–98Google Scholar
  18. Kim K, Barnett GA (1996) The determinants of international news flow: a network analysis. Commun Res 23:323–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee E, Stek PE (2016) Shifting alliances in international organizations: a social networks analysis of co-sponsorship of UN GA resolutions, 1976–2012. J Contemp East Asia 15(2):191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCulloh IA, Johnson AN, Carley KM (2012) Spectral analysis of social networks to identify periodicity. J Math Sociol 36(2):80–96MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monge PR, Contractor NS (2003) Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Shoemaker P, Chang TK, Brendlinger N (1986) Deviance as a predictor of newsworthiness: coverage of international events in the US media. In: McLaughlin ML (ed) Commun yearbook 10. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 348–365Google Scholar
  23. Snijders TAB, van de Bunt GG, Steglich CE (2010) Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc Netw 32:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Toivonen R, Kovanen L, Kivelä M, Onnela J, Saramäki J, Kask K (2009) A comparative study of social network models: network evolution models and nodal attribute models. Soc Netw 31:240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wallerstein I (1974) The modern world system. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations