This is an old revision of the document!
Table of Contents
Introduction
Tools
- Visualization
PADGETT FLORENTINE FAMILIES Study
PADGETT FLORENTINE FAMILIES
DATASET PADGETT and PADGW / Pajek
DESCRIPTION PADGETT
Two 16×16 matrices:
PADGB symmetric binary
PADGM symmetric binary
PADGW
One 16×3 matrix, valued.
BACKGROUND Breiger & Pattison (1986), in their discussion of local role analysis, use a subset of data on the social relations among Renaissance Florentine families (person aggregates) collected by John Padgett from historical documents. The two relations are business ties (PADGB - specifically, recorded financial ties such as loans, credits and joint partnerships) and marriage alliances (PADGM).
As Breiger & Pattison point out, the original data are symmetrically coded. This is acceptable perhaps for marital ties, but is unfortunate for the financial ties (which are almost certainly directed). To remedy this, the financial ties can be recoded as directed relations using some external measure of power - for instance, a measure of wealth. PADGW provides information on (1) each family's net wealth in 1427 (in thousands of lira); (2) the number of priorates (seats on the civic council) held between 1282- 1344; and (3) the total number of business or marriage ties in the total dataset of 116 families (see Breiger & Pattison (1986), p 239).
Substantively, the data include families who were locked in a struggle for political control of the city of Florence in around 1430. Two factions were dominant in this struggle: one revolved around the infamous Medicis (9), the other around the powerful Strozzis (15).
REFERENCES
- Breiger R. and Pattison P. (1986). Cumulated social roles: The duality of persons and their algebras. Social Networks, 8, 215-256. PDF
- Kent D. (1978). The rise of the Medici: Faction in Florence, 1426-1434. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Padgett, John F; Ansell, Christopher K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. The American Journal of Sociology, 98 (6). PDF
DL N=16 NM=2 FORMAT = FULLMATRIX DIAGONAL PRESENT ROW LABELS: ACCIAIUOL ALBIZZI BARBADORI BISCHERI CASTELLAN GINORI GUADAGNI LAMBERTES MEDICI PAZZI PERUZZI PUCCI RIDOLFI SALVIATI STROZZI TORNABUON COLUMN LABELS: ACCIAIUOL ALBIZZI BARBADORI BISCHERI CASTELLAN GINORI GUADAGNI LAMBERTES MEDICI PAZZI PERUZZI PUCCI RIDOLFI SALVIATI STROZZI TORNABUON LEVEL LABELS: PADGM PADGB DATA: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DL NR=16 NC=3 FORMAT = FULLMATRIX DIAGONAL PRESENT ROW LABELS: ACCIAIUOL ALBIZZI RIDOLFI STROZZI BARBADORI BISCHERI CASTELLAN GUADAGNI LAMBERTES MEDICI PAZZI PERUZZI SALVIATI TORNABUON GINORI PUCCI COLUMN LABELS: WEALTH #PRIORS #TIES DATA: 10 53 2 36 65 3 27 38 4 146 74 29 55 0 14 44 12 9 20 22 18 8 21 14 42 0 14 103 53 54 48 0 7 49 42 32 10 35 5 48 0 7 32 0 9 3 0 1
QAP result
QAP CORRELATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Matrices: PADGB
PADGM
# of Permutations: 5000
Random seed: 8954
Method: Fast: no missing values allowed
QAP results for PADGM * PADGB (5000 permutations)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Obs Value Significa Average Std Dev Minimum Maximum Prop >= O Prop <= O
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Pearson Correlation 0.3719 0.0016 0.0032 0.0944 -0.1690 0.4395 0.0016 0.9998
QAP Correlations
1 2
PADGB PADGM
----- -----
1 PADGB 1.000 0.372
2 PADGM 0.372 1.000
QAP P-Values
1 2
PADGB PADGM
----- -----
1 PADGB 0.000 0.002
2 PADGM 0.002 0.000
QAP statistics saved as datafile QAP Correlation Results
----------------------------------------
Running time: 00:00:01
Output generated: 12 5 16 08:44:36
UCINET 6.528 Copyright (c) 1992-2012 Analytic Technologies
Sampson Monastery
Sampson Monastery
Overview
The Sampson Monastery dataset consists of social relations among a set of 18 monk-novitiates preparing to enter a monastery. The data include a variety of relations, such as liking, dislike, influence and so on. There are three separate matrices for liking, representing liking relations at three points in time. (Regrettably, the data were collected retrospectively so they are not truly longitudinal.)
Network Dataset
The dataset name is SAMPSON, and includes the following ten 18×18 matrices:
SAMPLK1 non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPLK2 non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPLK3 non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPDLK non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPES non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPDES non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPIN non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPNIN non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPPR non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
SAMPNPR non-symmetric, valued (rankings of top 3 choices)
The labels on the data have the abbreviated names followed by the codings used by Breiger and Boorman in all their work.
Background
Samuel F. Sampson recorded the social interactions among a group of monks while resident as an experimenter on vision, and collected numerous sociometric rankings. Some novices had attended the minor seminary of 'Cloisterville' before they came to the monastery. During his stay, a political “crisis in the cloister” resulted in the expulsion of four monks (Nos. 2, 3, 17, and 18) and the voluntary departure of several others - most immediately, Nos. 1, 7, 14, 15, and 16. (In the end, only 5, 6, 9, and 11 remained). All the numbers used refer to the Breiger et al numbering and are not row or column labels. Hence in the end Bonaventure, Berthold, Ambrose and Louis all remained.
Most of the present data are retrospective, collected after the breakup occurred. They concern a period during which a new cohort entered the monastery near the end of the study but before the major conflict began. The exceptions are “liking” data gathered at three times: SAMPLK1 to SAMPLK3 - that reflect changes in group sentiment over time (SAMPLK3 was collected in the same wave as the data described below). Information about the senior monks was not included.
Four relations are coded, with separate matrices for positive and negative ties on the relation. Each member ranked only his top three choices on that tie. The relations are esteem (SAMPES) and disesteem (SAMPDES), liking (SAMPLK) and disliking (SAMPDLK), positive influence (SAMPIN) and negative influence (SAMPNIN), praise (SAMPPR) and blame (SAMPNPR). In all rankings 3 indicates the highest or first choice and 1 the last choice. (Some subjects offered tied ranks for their top four choices).
Based on his observations and analyses, Sampson divided the novices into four groups: Young Turks, Loyal Opposition, Outcasts, and an interstitial group. The Loyal Opposition consists of the novices who entered the monastery first. The Young Turks arrived later, in a period of change. They questioned practices in the monastery, which the members of the Loyal Opposition defended. Some novices did not take sides in this debate, so they are labeled 'interstitial'. The Outcasts are novices who were not accepted in the group.
Sampson Monastery