Upload
knowledge-media-institute
View
313
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Short presentation at Dagstuhl seminar on Physical-Cyber-Social Computing, September 29 to October 4, 2013. http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=13402
Citation preview
From smart meters to smart behaviour
Harith Alani http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/harith/
@halani
harith-alani
@halani
Dagstuhl seminar on Physical-Cyber-Social Computing, 2013
Social Web Communities - 2008
One year later ….
0"
0.2"
0.4"
0.6"
0.8"
1"
1.2"
1" 5" 9" 13" 17" 21" 25" 29" 33" 37" 41" 45"
H.Index"F2F"Degree"F2F"Strength"
Physical-Cyber-Social behaviour
Table 1: Correlation Coe!cients of dimensions
Dispersion Engagement Contribution Initiation Quality PopularityDispersion 1.000 0.277 0.168 0.389 0.086 0.356Engagement 0.277 1.000 0.939** 0.284 0.151 0.926**Contribution 0.168 0.939** 1.000 0.274 0.086 0.909**Initiation 0.389 0.284 0.274 1.000 -0.059 0.513Quality 0.086 0.151 0.086 -0.059 1.000 0.065Popularity 0.356 0.926** 0.909** 0.513 0.065 1.000
Figure 7: Cumulative density functions of each dimension showingthe skew in the distributions for initiated and in-degree ratio
same forum and do not deviate away, at the other ex-treme very few users are found to post in a large rangeof forums. For initiated (initiation) and in-degree ratio(popularity) the density functions are skewed towardslow values where only a few users initiate discussionsand are replied to by large portions of the community.Average points per post (quality) is also skewed to-wards lower values indicating that the majority of usersdo not provide the best answers consistently.These plots indicate that feature levels derived from
these distributions will be skewed towards lower values,for instance for initiated the definition of high for thisfeature is anything exceeding 1.55x10!5.The distribution of each dimension is shown in Fig-
ure 8 for each of the 11 induced clusters. We assessthe distribution of each feature for each cluster againstthe levels derived from the equal-frequency binning ofeach feature, thereby generating a feature-to-level map-
Figure 8: Boxplots of the feature distributions in each of the 11 clus-ters. Feature distributions are matched against the feature levels de-rived from equal-frequency binning
ping. This mapping is shown in Table 2 where certainclusters are combined together as they have the samefeature-level mapping patterns (i.e. 5,7 and 8,9). Wethen interpreted the role labels from these clusters, andtheir subsequent patterns, as follows:
• 0 - Focussed Expert Participant: this user typeprovides high quality answers but only within se-lect forums that they do not deviate from. Theyalso have a mix of asking questions and answeringthem.
• 1 - Focussed Novice: this user is focussed within afew select forums but does not provide good qual-ity content.
• 2 - Mixed Novice: is a novice across a mediumrange of topics
6
Behaviour analysis of online communities § Bottom Up analysis
§ Every community member is classified into a “role”
§ Unknown roles might be identified
§ Copes with role changes over time
ini#ators
lurkers
followers
leaders
Structural, social network, reciprocity, persistence, participation
Feature levels change with the dynamics of the community
Associations of roles with a collection of feature-to-level mappings e.g. in-degree -> high, out-degree -> high
Run rules over each user’s features and derive the community role composition
Table 1: Correlation Coe!cients of dimensions
Dispersion Engagement Contribution Initiation Quality PopularityDispersion 1.000 0.277 0.168 0.389 0.086 0.356Engagement 0.277 1.000 0.939** 0.284 0.151 0.926**Contribution 0.168 0.939** 1.000 0.274 0.086 0.909**Initiation 0.389 0.284 0.274 1.000 -0.059 0.513Quality 0.086 0.151 0.086 -0.059 1.000 0.065Popularity 0.356 0.926** 0.909** 0.513 0.065 1.000
Figure 7: Cumulative density functions of each dimension showingthe skew in the distributions for initiated and in-degree ratio
same forum and do not deviate away, at the other ex-treme very few users are found to post in a large rangeof forums. For initiated (initiation) and in-degree ratio(popularity) the density functions are skewed towardslow values where only a few users initiate discussionsand are replied to by large portions of the community.Average points per post (quality) is also skewed to-wards lower values indicating that the majority of usersdo not provide the best answers consistently.These plots indicate that feature levels derived from
these distributions will be skewed towards lower values,for instance for initiated the definition of high for thisfeature is anything exceeding 1.55x10!5.The distribution of each dimension is shown in Fig-
ure 8 for each of the 11 induced clusters. We assessthe distribution of each feature for each cluster againstthe levels derived from the equal-frequency binning ofeach feature, thereby generating a feature-to-level map-
Figure 8: Boxplots of the feature distributions in each of the 11 clus-ters. Feature distributions are matched against the feature levels de-rived from equal-frequency binning
ping. This mapping is shown in Table 2 where certainclusters are combined together as they have the samefeature-level mapping patterns (i.e. 5,7 and 8,9). Wethen interpreted the role labels from these clusters, andtheir subsequent patterns, as follows:
• 0 - Focussed Expert Participant: this user typeprovides high quality answers but only within se-lect forums that they do not deviate from. Theyalso have a mix of asking questions and answeringthem.
• 1 - Focussed Novice: this user is focussed within afew select forums but does not provide good qual-ity content.
• 2 - Mixed Novice: is a novice across a mediumrange of topics
6
Table 1: Correlation Coe!cients of dimensions
Dispersion Engagement Contribution Initiation Quality PopularityDispersion 1.000 0.277 0.168 0.389 0.086 0.356Engagement 0.277 1.000 0.939** 0.284 0.151 0.926**Contribution 0.168 0.939** 1.000 0.274 0.086 0.909**Initiation 0.389 0.284 0.274 1.000 -0.059 0.513Quality 0.086 0.151 0.086 -0.059 1.000 0.065Popularity 0.356 0.926** 0.909** 0.513 0.065 1.000
Figure 7: Cumulative density functions of each dimension showingthe skew in the distributions for initiated and in-degree ratio
same forum and do not deviate away, at the other ex-treme very few users are found to post in a large rangeof forums. For initiated (initiation) and in-degree ratio(popularity) the density functions are skewed towardslow values where only a few users initiate discussionsand are replied to by large portions of the community.Average points per post (quality) is also skewed to-wards lower values indicating that the majority of usersdo not provide the best answers consistently.These plots indicate that feature levels derived from
these distributions will be skewed towards lower values,for instance for initiated the definition of high for thisfeature is anything exceeding 1.55x10!5.The distribution of each dimension is shown in Fig-
ure 8 for each of the 11 induced clusters. We assessthe distribution of each feature for each cluster againstthe levels derived from the equal-frequency binning ofeach feature, thereby generating a feature-to-level map-
Figure 8: Boxplots of the feature distributions in each of the 11 clus-ters. Feature distributions are matched against the feature levels de-rived from equal-frequency binning
ping. This mapping is shown in Table 2 where certainclusters are combined together as they have the samefeature-level mapping patterns (i.e. 5,7 and 8,9). Wethen interpreted the role labels from these clusters, andtheir subsequent patterns, as follows:
• 0 - Focussed Expert Participant: this user typeprovides high quality answers but only within se-lect forums that they do not deviate from. Theyalso have a mix of asking questions and answeringthem.
• 1 - Focussed Novice: this user is focussed within afew select forums but does not provide good qual-ity content.
• 2 - Mixed Novice: is a novice across a mediumrange of topics
6
Correlations
§ Between different behaviour roles
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Churn Rate
FPR
TPR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
User Count
FPR
TPR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Seeds / Non−seeds Prop
FPR
TPR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Clustering Coefficient
FPR
TPR
§ Between behaviour and activity
§ Between behaviours and community health
!
Composition and evolution of behaviour
macro level
micro level
And in the mean time …
GLOBAL WARMING
Solar panels
Smart Meters
www.efergy.com
greenenergyoptions.co.uk
fastcompany.com
powerp.co.uk
www.energycircle.com
indiegogo.com greentechadvocates.com
But the jury is still out
With Manfred’s permission
Fine, but what does this have to do with behaviour?!
Need to change consumption behaviour
Nov 2012
• Behaviour can be changed • Individual/community approaches • Multiple motivating factors • Behaviour change is sustainable
key findings
• Quantitative impact of specific changes • Socio-demographic factors • Gas vs electricity vs water • Cost-effectiveness of interventions • Longevity of change
gaps
August 2012
• Personal energy-saving targets • Community/social initiative lead to long-term change • Dynamic pricing schemes don’t always work • The “rebound effect” can emerge from short-term measures • Role of technology, age, economic situation, culture, marketing, etc. • Consumer ability to handle new technology, capital cost, trade-offs, and
expected convenience
Making the invisible visible
Feedback
§ What’s the optimal level of detail ?
§ What feedback is suitable for what type of consumer?
§ What feedback tools? What visualisations?
Behaviour change models
http://www.enablingchange.com.au/7_doors_page.html
information
personalised drivers
tools
feedback
convenience social/competitions
behaviour change
Ø Effectiveness of different strategies Ø Quantitative impact of change Ø Cause-effect indicators Ø Socio-demographic factors Ø Longevity of change
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Churn Rate
FPR
TPR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
User Count
FPR
TPR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Seeds / Non−seeds Prop
FPR
TPR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Clustering Coefficient
FPR
TPR
www.decarbonet.eu/
Stay tuned