Source author record

Jana Diesner

Jana Diesner appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

What Changed? Investigating Debiasing Methods using Causal Mediation Analysis

Previous work has examined how debiasing language models affect downstream tasks, specifically, how debiasing techniques influence task performance and whether debiased models also make impartial predictions in downstream tasks or not. However, what we don't understand well yet is why debiasing methods have varying impacts on downstream tasks and how debiasing techniques affect internal components of language models, i.e., neurons, layers, and attentions. In this paper, we decompose the internal mechanisms of debiasing language models with respect to gender by applying causal mediation analysis to understand the influence of debiasing methods on toxicity detection as a downstream task. Our findings suggest a need to test the effectiveness of debiasing methods with different bias metrics, and to focus on changes in the behavior of certain components of the models, e.g.,first two layers of language models, and attention heads.

preprint2021arXiv

Formational bounds of link prediction in collaboration networks

Link prediction in collaboration networks is often solved by identifying structural properties of existing nodes that are disconnected at one point in time, and that share a link later on. The maximally possible recall rate or upper bound of this approach's success is capped by the proportion of links that are formed among existing nodes embedded in these properties. Consequentially, sustained ties as well as links that involve one or two new network participants are typically not predicted. The purpose of this study is to highlight formational constraints that need to be considered to increase the practical value of link prediction methods for collaboration networks. In this study, we identify the distribution of basic link formation types based on four large-scale, over-time collaboration networks, showing that current link predictors can maximally anticipate around 25% of links that involve at least one prior network member. This implies that for collaboration networks, increasing the accuracy of computational link prediction solutions may not be a reasonable goal when the ratio of collaboration ties that are eligible to the classic link prediction process is low.

preprint2021arXiv

Over-time measurement of triadic closure in coauthorship networks

Applying the concept of triadic closure to coauthorship networks means that scholars are likely to publish a joint paper if they have previously coauthored with the same people. Prior research has identified moderate to high (20% to 40%) closure rates; suggesting that this mechanism is a reasonable explanation for tie formation between future coauthors. We show how calculating triadic closure based on prior operationalizations of closure, namely Newman's measure for one-mode networks (NCC) and Opsahl's measure for two-mode networks (OCC), may lead to higher amounts of closure as compared to measuring closure over time via a metric that we introduce and test in this paper. Based on empirical experiments using four large-scale, longitudinal datasets, we find a lower bound of about 1~3% closure rates and an upper bound of about 4~7%. These results motivate research on new explanatory factors for the formation of coauthorship links.

preprint2020arXiv

Multilevel Structural Evaluation of Signed Directed Social Networks based on Balance Theory

Balance theory explains the forces behind the structure of social systems, which are commonly modeled as static undirected signed networks. We expand this modeling approach to incorporate directionality of edges, and consider three levels of analysis: triads, subgroups, and the whole network. For triad-level balance, we operationalize a new measure by utilizing semicycles that satisfy the condition of transitivity. For subgroup-level balance, we propose measures of cohesiveness (intra-group solidarity) and divisiveness (inter-group antagonism) to capture balance within and among subgroups of the network using the most fitting partition of nodes into two groups. For network-level balance, we re-purpose the normalized line index to incorporate directionality, and provide the proportion of edges whose position suits balance. Through extensive computational analysis, we quantify and analyze patterns of social structure in triads, subgroups, and the whole network across a range of social settings from college students and Wikipedia editors to philosophers and Bitcoin traders. We then apply our multilevel framework of analysis to examine balance in temporal and multilayer networks, which demonstrates the generalizability of our approach to evaluating balance, and leads to new observations on balance with respect to time and layer dimensions. Our complementary findings on a variety of social networks highlight the need to evaluate balance at different levels. We propose a comprehensive yet parsimonious approach to address this need.

preprint2020arXiv

Structural balance in signed digraphs: considering transitivity to measure balance in graphs constructed by using different link signing methods

Structural balance theory assumes triads in networks to gravitate towards stable configurations. The theory has been verified for undirected graphs. Since real-world networks are often directed, we introduce a novel method for considering both transitivity and sign consistency for calculating balance in signed digraphs. We test our approach on graphs that we constructed by using different methods for identifying edge signs: natural language processing to infer signs from underlying text data, and self-reported survey data. Our results show that for various social contexts and edge sign detection methods, balance is moderately high, ranging from 67.5% to 92.4%.

preprint2015arXiv

Coauthorship networks: A directed network approach considering the order and number of coauthors

In many scientific fields, the order of coauthors on a paper conveys information about each individual's contribution to a piece of joint work. We argue that in prior network analyses of coauthorship networks, the information on ordering has been insufficiently considered because ties between authors are typically symmetrized. This is basically the same as assuming that each co-author has contributed equally to a paper. We introduce a solution to this problem by adopting a coauthorship credit allocation model proposed by Kim and Diesner (2014), which in its core conceptualizes co-authoring as a directed, weighted, and self-looped network. We test and validate our application of the adopted framework based on a sample data of 861 authors who have published in the journal Psychometrika. Results suggest that this novel sociometric approach can complement traditional measures based on undirected networks and expand insights into coauthoring patterns such as the hierarchy of collaboration among scholars. As another form of validation, we also show how our approach accurately detects prominent scholars in the Psychometric Society affiliated with the journal.

preprint2015arXiv

Distortive Effects of Initial-Based Name Disambiguation on Measurements of Large-Scale Coauthorship Networks

Scholars have often relied on name initials to resolve name ambiguities in large-scale coauthorship network research. This approach bears the risk of incorrectly merging or splitting author identities. The use of initial-based disambiguation has been justified by the assumption that such errors would not affect research findings too much. This paper tests this assumption by analyzing coauthorship networks from five academic fields - biology, computer science, nanoscience, neuroscience, and physics - and an interdisciplinary journal, PNAS. Name instances in datasets of this study were disambiguated based on heuristics gained from previous algorithmic disambiguation solutions. We use disambiguated data as a proxy of ground-truth to test the performance of three types of initial-based disambiguation. Our results show that initial-based disambiguation can misrepresent statistical properties of coauthorship networks: it deflates the number of unique authors, number of component, average shortest paths, clustering coefficient, and assortativity, while it inflates average productivity, density, average coauthor number per author, and largest component size. Also, on average, more than half of top 10 productive or collaborative authors drop off the lists. Asian names were found to account for the majority of misidentification by initial-based disambiguation due to their common surname and given name initials.