Social networks and similarity of site assemblages

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.
Datum
2018
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
European Union (EU): 319209
Projekt
NEXUS 1492
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Journal of Archaeological Science. 2018, 92, pp. 63-72. ISSN 0305-4403. eISSN 1095-9238. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2017.11.002
Zusammenfassung

There have been a number of similarity measures developed in a variety of research domains. Generally, these measures are developed for a specific context and later reused in other contexts and applications, depending on their ease of use and perceived applicability. While there might be statistical reasons to use a particular similarity index, the results of other measures should be taken into account as well, as various similarity measures do not necessarily have similar contextual meaning. Two entities can be similar with respect to a certain similarity criterion but may be distinct in terms of another. Thus, an understanding of the mathematical logic behind a method is crucial to the interpretation of the resulting network of similarities. We review a number of methods from the literature, for constructing similarity networks among disparate entities, regarding their applicability on data from archaeological sites. Formally, given an N X p matrix of N entities with p distinct classes of attributes, how are the entities comparable to each other with respect to the kinds of attributes they share? We distinguish three qualitatively different families of similarity measures for deducing relationships among entities that may meaningfully map onto various distinct social phenomena, such as migration, material acquisition, and movement of goods and skills, among others. Entities can be compared based on: (a) non{uniform weighting of attributes, (b) asymmetric dominance relationships, and (c) rank correlations. We ground the significance and distinction of these classes of measures by giving comparative and contextual examples of selected methods on a case study of archaeological collections pertaining to 1200–1500 CE from the US Southwest region. We attempt to elucidate the differences in outcomes and their meanings when choosing various similarity methods for comparing disparate entities.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
004 Informatik
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Datensätze
Zitieren
ISO 690HABIBA, , Jan C. ATHENSTÄDT, Barbara J. MILLS, Ulrik BRANDES, 2018. Social networks and similarity of site assemblages. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. 2018, 92, pp. 63-72. ISSN 0305-4403. eISSN 1095-9238. Available under: doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2017.11.002
BibTex
@article{Habiba2018-04Socia-42495,
  year={2018},
  doi={10.1016/j.jas.2017.11.002},
  title={Social networks and similarity of site assemblages},
  volume={92},
  issn={0305-4403},
  journal={Journal of Archaeological Science},
  pages={63--72},
  author={Habiba and Athenstädt, Jan C. and Mills, Barbara J. and Brandes, Ulrik}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42495">
    <dc:contributor>Athenstädt, Jan C.</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-06-05T13:12:24Z</dcterms:available>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/36"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/36"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">There have been a number of similarity measures developed in a variety of research domains. Generally, these measures are developed for a specific context and later reused in other contexts and applications, depending on their ease of use and perceived applicability. While there might be statistical reasons to use a particular similarity index, the results of other measures should be taken into account as well, as various similarity measures do not necessarily have similar contextual meaning. Two entities can be similar with respect to a certain similarity criterion but may be distinct in terms of another. Thus, an understanding of the mathematical logic behind a method is crucial to the interpretation of the resulting network of similarities. We review a number of methods from the literature, for constructing similarity networks among disparate entities, regarding their applicability on data from archaeological sites. Formally, given an N X p matrix of N entities with p distinct classes of attributes, how are the entities comparable to each other with respect to the kinds of attributes they share? We distinguish three qualitatively different families of similarity measures for deducing relationships among entities that may meaningfully map onto various distinct social phenomena, such as migration, material acquisition, and movement of goods and skills, among others. Entities can be compared based on: (a) non{uniform weighting of attributes, (b) asymmetric dominance relationships, and (c) rank correlations. We ground the significance and distinction of these classes of measures by giving comparative and contextual examples of selected methods on a case study of archaeological collections pertaining to 1200–1500 CE from the US Southwest region. We attempt to elucidate the differences in outcomes and their meanings when choosing various similarity methods for comparing disparate entities.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:creator>Athenstädt, Jan C.</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Mills, Barbara J.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:title>Social networks and similarity of site assemblages</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:issued>2018-04</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:creator>Brandes, Ulrik</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Brandes, Ulrik</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Habiba</dc:creator>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-06-05T13:12:24Z</dc:date>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:contributor>Habiba</dc:contributor>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/42495"/>
    <dc:contributor>Mills, Barbara J.</dc:contributor>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Ja
Diese Publikation teilen