Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An assessment of preferential attachment as a mechanism for human sexual network formation

Open access
Jones, J. H., Handcock, M. S.·2003·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Recent research into the properties of human sexual-contact networks has suggested that the degree distribution of the contact graph exhibits power-law scaling. One notable property of this power-law scaling is that the epidemic threshold for the population disappears when the scaling exponent rho is in the range 2 < rho < or = 3. This property is of fundamental significance for the control of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as HIV/AIDS since it implies that an STD can persist regardless of its transmissibility. A stochastic process, known as preferential attachment, that yields one form of power-law scaling has been suggested to underlie the scaling of sexual degree distributions. The limiting distribution of this preferential attachment process is the Yule distribution, which we fit using maximum likelihood to local network data from samples of three populations: (i) the Rakai district, Uganda; (ii) Sweden; and (iii) the USA. For all local networks but one, our interval estimates of the scaling parameters are in the range where epidemic thresholds exist. The estimate of the exponent for male networks in the USA is close to 3, but the preferential attachment model is a very poor fit to these data. We conclude that the epidemic thresholds implied by this model exist in both single-sex and two-sex epidemic model formulations. A strong conclusion that we derive from these results is that public health interventions aimed at reducing the transmissibility of STD pathogens, such as implementing condom use or high-activity anti-retroviral therapy, have the potential to bring a population below the epidemic transition, even in populations exhibiting large degrees of behavioural heterogeneity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2003.2369

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Jones, J. H., & Handcock, M. S.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2003-06-07
Volume
270
Issue
1520
Pages
1123-1128
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2128757047
Cited by
165
References
5
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 assessment of preferential attachment as a mechanism for human sexual network formation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2003.2369
The paper
Jones, J. H., & Handcock, M. S. (2003). An assessment of preferential attachment as a mechanism for human sexual network formation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2369

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.