Centrality measures, or at least popular interpretations of these measures, make implicit assumptions about the manner in which traffic flows through a network. For example, some measures count only geodesic paths, apparently assuming that whatever flows through the network only moves along the shortest possible paths. This paper lays out a typology of network flows based on two dimensions of variation, namely the kinds of trajectories that traffic may follow (geodesics, paths, trails, or walks) and the method of spread (broadcast, serial replication, or transfer). Measures of centrality are then matched to the kinds of flows that they are appropriate for. Simulations are used to examine the relationship between type of flow and the differential importance of nodes with respect to key measurements such as speed of reception of traffic and frequency of receiving traffic. It is shown that the off-the-shelf formulas for centrality measures are fully applicable only for the specific flow processes they are designed for, and that when they are applied to other flow processes they get the "wrong" answer. It is noted that the most commonly used centrality measures are not appropriate for most of the flows we are routinely interested in. A key claim made in this paper is that centrality measures can be regarded as generating expected values for certain kinds of node outcomes (such as speed and frequency of reception) given implicit models of how traffic flows, and that this provides a new and useful way of thinking about centrality.

Stephen P. Borgatti

Social Networks

Social Networks is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly. It provides a common forum for representatives of anthropology, sociology, history, social psychology, political science, human geography, biology, economics, communications science and other disciplines who share an interest in the study of the empirical structure of social relations and associations that may be expressed in network form. It publishes both theoretical and substantive papers. Critical reviews of major theoretical or methodological approaches using the notion of networks in the analysis of social behaviour are also included, as are reviews of recent books dealing with social networks and social structure.

Social Networks is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly journal. It serves as a common forum for representatives from various fields, including anthropology, sociology, history, social psychology, political science, human geography, biology, economics, and communication science, who share an interest in studying the empirical structure of social relations and associations that can be expressed in network form. The journal publishes both theoretical and substantive papers, as well as critical reviews of major theoretical or methodological approaches that utilize the concept of networks in analyzing social behavior. Additionally, it includes reviews of recent books related to social networks and social structure.

《Social Networks》是一本跨学科的国际季刊。它为人类学、社会学、历史、社会心理学、政治科学、人文地理学、生物学、经济学、传播科学等多个学科的代表提供了一个共同的论坛，这些学科的研究者都对社会关系和社会关联的实证结构感兴趣，这些结构可以用网络形式表达。期刊发表理论性和实质性的论文，同时也包括对使用网络概念分析社会行为的主要理论或方法论的批判性评审，以及对涉及社会网络和社会结构的近期书籍的评审。

Centrality and network flow

A key claim made in this paper is that centrality measures can be regarded as generating expected values for certain kinds of node outcomes given implicit models of how traffic flows, and that this provides a new and useful way of thinking about centrality.

Category	Quartile
社会学	2
社会学, 人类学	2
社会学, 社会学	3

Centrality and network flow

ivySCI AI Smartly Parses PDF, Answers Researchers' Questions, and Helps You Understand Papers in Seconds

Journal Info