AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 71–85 | Cite as

Mobile social group sizes and scaling ratio

Original Article

Abstract

Social data mining has become an emerging area of research in information and communication technology fields. The scope of social data mining has expanded significantly in the recent years with the advance of telecommunication technologies and the rapidly increasing accessibility of computing resources and mobile devices. People increasingly engage in and rely on phone communications for both personal and business purposes. Hence, mobile phones become an indispensable part of life for many people. In this article, we perform social data mining on mobile social networking by presenting a simple but efficient method to define social closeness and social grouping, which are then used to identify social sizes and scaling ratio of close to “8”. We conclude that social mobile network is a subset of the face-to-face social network, and both groupings are not necessary the same, hence the scaling ratios are distinct. Mobile social data mining.

References

  1. Bhaskar P, Ahamed SI (2007) Privacy in pervasive computing and open issues. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on availability, reliability and security, pp 147–154Google Scholar
  2. Birtchnell J (1997) Personality set within an octagonal model of relating. In: Plutchik R, Hope C (eds) Circumplex models of personality and emotions. American Psychological Association, pp 155–182Google Scholar
  3. Bleecker J (2006) What’s your social doing in my mobile? Design patterns for mobile social software. In: Proceedings of WWW2006 workshop MobEA IV—empowering the mobile web, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. Cheng J, Wong S, Yang H, Lu S (2007) SmartSiren: virus detection and alert for smartphones. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on mobile systems, applications and services, pp 258–271Google Scholar
  5. Coleman JS (1964) An introduction to mathematical sociology. Collier-Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Dantu R, Kolan P (2005) Detecting spam in VoIP networks. In: Proceedings of the steps to reducing unwanted traffic on the internet on steps to reducing unwanted traffic on the internet workshop, pp 5–10Google Scholar
  7. Dunbar RIM (1992) Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. J Hum Evol 22:469–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunbar RIM (1993) Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size, and language in humans. Behav Brain Sci 16:681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunbar RIM, Spoors M (1995) Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Hum Nat 6:273–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erzan A, Eckmann JP (1997) q-analysis of fractal sets. Phys Lett 78:3245Google Scholar
  11. Freeman L (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Networks 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hakkila J, Mantyjarvi J (2005) Collaboration in context-aware mobile phone applications. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’05), pp 33–39Google Scholar
  14. Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2003) Social network size in humans. Hum Nat 14:53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hossain L, Chung KK, Murshed SH (2007) Exploring temporal communication through social networks. In: Proceedings of IFIP international federation for information processing, pp 19–20Google Scholar
  16. Jamieson L (1998) Intimacy, personal relationship in modern societies. Polity Press & Blackwell Publishers Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Kayser K, Himle DP (1994) Dysfunctional beliefs about intimacy. J Cogn Psychother 8:127–139Google Scholar
  18. Kolan P, Dantu R (2007) Socio-technical defense against voice spamming. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 2(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolan P, Dantu R, Cangussu JW (2008) Nuisance level of a voice call. ACM Trans Multi Comput Commun Appl (TOMCCAP) 5(1):6–22Google Scholar
  20. Kottak CP (1991) Cultural anthropology. Mcgraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Marden PV, Cambell KE (1984) Measuring tie strength. Soc Forces 63(2):482–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mesch GS, Talmud I (2006) Online friendship formation, communication channels, and social closeness. Int J Inter Sci 1(1):29–44Google Scholar
  23. Milne LD (1999) Social therapy. A guide to social support interventions for mental health practitioners. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Nolker RD, Zhou L (2005) Social computing and weighting to identify member roles in online communities. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence, pp 87–93Google Scholar
  25. Orlofsky JL, Marcia JE, Lesser IM (1973) Ego identity status and the intimacy versus isolation crisis of young adulthood. J Pers Soc Psychol 27:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phithakkitnukoon S, Dantu R (2008) UNT mobile phone communication dataset, University Of North Texas, http://nsl.unt.edu/santi/data_desc.pdf
  27. Popovic M, Milne D, Barrett P (2003) The scale of perceived interpersonal closeness (PICS). Clin Psychol Psychother 10:286–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Press W, Teukolsky S, Flannery B (1996) Numerical recipes in FORTRAN: the art of science computing. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Schaefer MT, Olson DH (1981) Assessing intimacy: the PAIR inventory. J Marital Fam Ther 7:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scupin R (1992) Cultural anthropology—a global perspective. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  31. Shang J, Croson R (2005a) The impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Working paper, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  32. Shang J, Croson R (2005b) The impact of social comparisons on nonprofit fundraising. Forthcoming in research in experimental economicsGoogle Scholar
  33. Shang J, Croson R, Reed II A (2008) “I” give, but “We” give more: the impact of identity and the mere social information effect on donation behavior. J Mark Res 45:1–10Google Scholar
  34. Sheather SJ, Jones MC (1991) A reliable data-based bandwidth selection method for kernel density estimation. J R Stat Soc B 53:683–690MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Sherman MD, Thelen MH (1996) Fear of intimacy scale: validation and extension with adolescents. J Soc Pers Relat 13:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith GE, Berger PD (1996) The impact of direct marketing appeals on charitable marketing effectiveness. Acad Market Sci 24(3):219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sornette D (1998) Multiplicative processes and power laws. Phys Rep 297:239Google Scholar
  38. Wan X, Milios E, Kalyaniwalla N, Janssen J (2008) Link-based anomaly detection in communication networks. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, pp 402–405Google Scholar
  39. Wasserman L (2005) All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference. Springer Texts in Statistics, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong W, Moore A, Cooper G, Wagner M (2002) Rule-based anomaly pattern detection for detecting disease outbreaks. Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence, pp 217–223Google Scholar
  41. Zhdanova AV, Predoiu L, Pellegrini T, Fensel D (2007) A social networking model of a web community. In: Proceedings of 10th international symposium on social communication, pp 537–541Google Scholar
  42. Zhou WX, Sornette D (2002) Generalized q analysis of log-periodicity: applications to critical ruptures. Phys Rev E 66:046111Google Scholar
  43. Zhou WX, Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2005) Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. In: Proceedings of Biological Science 22, 272(1561), 439–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations