Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Zachary,

> I haven't spent much time looking at model GOF since I don't have a good comparison. The models that include nodematch terms obviously fit better than a null model that only contains the edges term, but that didn't seem particularly informative. If a model without GWESP appears to fit well, would it be acceptable to simply use it and ignore any structural effects.

I guess the most important question is whether the model without GWESP
accounts well for the ESP distribution. If it does, then you do not
need GWESP term in the model. Folding this onto Goodreau et al
exposition it would mean that the differential homophily you have in
your model accounts for higher density within groups, and that already
also accounts for the amount of transitivity in the network as whole
(with higher density some transitivity will happen within groups "by
accident"). Consequently, there would be not much transitivity left to
"explain" by GWESP on top of the terms you already have in the model.

Ad whether it is acceptable to go with a model without any structural
(i.e. network endogeneous effects):

This is of course a matter if it makes sense substantively. From a
purely data-driven standpoint if a model with "demographic" effects
only (attribute-related terms such as dyadcov, nodecov, nodefactor,
nodematch, nodemix etc.) accounts for the network structure well in
the sense of reproducing the important features in the data (degree
distribution, ESP distribution and so on), then I would say yes.

hth,
Michal

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.