Network Diversity and Economic Development
Science, 2010 · paper · Sociology
The text provided is a passage from a structural biology paper, not the economics paper named in the title. It describes how the SAGA deubiquitinating module's protein subunits interact with each other and how it might bind a ubiquitinated nucleosome.
1 finding
Wording Editor's summary says "network diversity alone accounts for over three-quarters of the variance of a region's economic status", but the largest correlation the article reports is r = 0.78 (composite measure), i.e. r² ≈ 0.61.
- p. 4 Editor's summary 'Network for Recovery'
network diversity alone accounts for over three-quarters of the
- p. 3 Main text, paragraph 2
alone, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (r = 0.78).
- p. 4 summary abstract
accounts for over three-quarters of the variance of a region's economic status
- p. 3 results paragraph
(r = 0.78)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 4 summary text verified on the crop. Page 3 image: the reported correlations are r = 0.73, 0.58, 0.44, −0.33, 0.72 and 0.78. The article reports no R² or variance-explained figure, including for the fractional polynomial in Fig. 2. Squaring the best r gives about 61%, short of three-quarters. To exceed 75%, r would have to be above about 0.866. The summary is journal-written text on an in-scope page. Only the authors or editors can say whether some unreported fit supports the claim.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
4 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Network summary gives "65 × 10^6 nodes, 368 × 10^6 reciprocated social ties" and "an average degree of 10.1 network neighbors"; 2E/N ≈ 11.3 and E/N ≈ 5.7, so neither matches 10.1, and the paper does not define how average degree was computed.
- p. 2 Main text, description of network, left column
average degree of 10.1 network neighbors
- p. 2 network description paragraph
65 × 106 nodes, 368 × 106 reciprocated social ties
- p. 2 same sentence
an average degree of 10.1 network neighbors
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked the page image (p.2, left column). It shows 65 × 10^6 nodes, 368 × 10^6 reciprocated ties and an average degree of 10.1. For an undirected graph the mean degree is 2E/N ≈ 11.32; counting each tie once gives 5.66. Nothing in the article or notes (refs 23–25) defines degree differently or restricts it to a subset. With the giant component holding 99.5% of nodes, restricting to it cannot close the gap. The degree might come from some other node set or definition, so only the authors can say which figure is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Dspatial is described as "replacing call volume with the geographic distance spanned by an individual's ties", but Eq. 6 defines p_ia as "the proportion of time i spends communicating with ath of A total exchange areas"; no distance enters the formula.
- p. 2 Definition of D_spatial, right column
by replacing call volume with the geo-graphic distance spanned by an individual's ties
- p. 2 Definition of p_ia after Eq. 6
in which pia is the proportion of time i spends communicating with ath of A total exchange areas.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 2 image, right column. Eq. 6 is an entropy over the shares of time spent with each exchange area, normalised by log(A). No geographic distance appears in it. The prose description of the input variable does not match the definition. The equation is probably what was computed, but only the authors can confirm that.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Fig. 1 caption reads "socioeconomic ranking for the UK" and the text says the IMD covers "32,482 communities encompassing the entire country", but the map shows data for England only (Wales shown dark/unplotted; Scotland and Northern Ireland absent).
- p. 2 Fig. 1 caption
socioeconomic ranking for the UK
- p. 2 Fig. 1 caption
An image of regional communication diversity and socioeconomic ranking for the UK.
- p. 2 Introduction, IMD description
relative prosperity of 32,482 communities encom-
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the 2004 IMD with 32,482 Super Output Areas covers England only. Independently of that fact, the page 2 image and crop C001-b show data only over England. Wales is a dark, unplotted area, and Scotland and Northern Ireland are not in the frame, so the caption's "for the UK" does not match what is plotted. Ref 24 is a Department of Communities and Local Government publication. The network data are described as UK-wide, so only the authors can say whether the IMD analysis was limited to England.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "Similarly prosperous Stratford-upon-Avon" lacks a comma after "Similarly", so it reads as saying Stratford is as prosperous as Stoke-on-Trent, which was just called one of the least prosperous regions.
- p. 3 Main text, paragraph 1
Similarly prosperous Stratford-upon-
Judge's note: The page 3 image, left column, confirms the text reads "Similarly prosperous Stratford-upon-Avon" with no comma. The intended contrast is clear from context, so this is cosmetic punctuation.
Second check: none (judge only)