The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Information Flow Model for Conflict and Fission in Small Groups
Abstract
Data from a voluntary association are used to construct a new formal model for a traditional anthropological problem, fission in small groups. The process leading to fission is viewed as an unequal flow of sentiments and information across the ties in a social network. This flow is unequal because it is uniquely constrained by the contextual range and sensitivity of each relationship in the network. The subsequent differential sharing of sentiments leads to the formation of subgroups with more internal stability than the group as a whole, and results in fission. The Ford-Fulkerson labeling algorithm allows an accurate prediction of membership in the subgroups and of the locus of the fission to be made from measurements of the potential for information flow across each edge in the network. Methods for measurement of potential information flow are discussed, and it is shown that all appropriate techniques will generate the same predictions. THE PROBLEM OF HOW and why fission takes place in small bounded groups has long been a central issue in social anthropology, even though the small groups studied have often been described under some other rubric, such as kinship. Fission in kinship groups has been studied from a variety of perspectives, especially those of descent theory
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Modularity and community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601602103 · Cited by 12,256
Fortunato, S. (2010) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 · Cited by 11,293
Resolution limit in community detection
Fortunato, S., & Barthélemy, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0605965104 · Cited by 3,024
Cited by
Community structure in social and biological networks
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.122653799 · Cited by 15,502
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Modularity and community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601602103 · Cited by 12,256
Fortunato, S. (2010) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 · Cited by 11,293
Complex networks: structure and dynamics
BOCCALETTI, S., LATORA, V, MORENO, Y., CHAVEZ, M., & HWANG, D. (2006) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.009 · Cited by 11,010
Metadata
- Authors
- Zachary, W. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Anthropological Research
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1977-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 452-473
- ISSN
- 0038-4801 (ISSN-L)
- 0091-7710
- 2153-3806
- OpenAlex
- W3101413764
- Cited by
- 4,704
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Information Flow Model for Conflict and Fission in Small Groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/jar.33.4.3629752
- The paper
- Zachary, W. W. (1977). An Information Flow Model for Conflict and Fission in Small Groups. Journal of Anthropological Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.33.4.3629752
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.