Cited by 44Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastPolitical Conflict and Governance

GROWING QAWM: AN EVIDENCE-DRIVEN DECLARATIVE MODEL OF AFGHAN POWER STRUCTURES

Open access
GELLER, ARMANDO, MOSS, SCOTT·2008·Advances in Complex Systems

Abstract

By means of evidence-driven and declaratively implemented social simulation, we grow qawm — solidarity networks in Afghanistan. The study of qawm lends insight into the structural and processual dynamics of Afghan society. In particular, we concentrate on the evolution of power structures. An agent-based computational model is presented whose ontology borrows from neopatrimonialism, a notion of power prevalent in contemporary conflicts. In this model, agents' structural arrangement, behavior and cognition are informed by qualitative data derived from case studies on Afghanistan. The simulation results suggest that the emergence of qawm and, hence, the fragmentation of Afghan society are systemic and lead to a constant drain of resources. Cross-validation between the simulated network and a target system network reveals that qawm exhibit small world characteristics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1142/s0219525908001659

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data from anthropology can supplement epidemiological and simulation research by supplying micro-level foundations for macro-level patterns.

    “Anthropological data can complement epidemiological and simulation studies by providing microfoundations for macro-level observations (Agar, 2005; Dean et al., 2000; Geller & Moss, 2008; Tubaro & Casilli, 2010; Yang & Gilbert, 2008).”

    From Syndemics: a theory in search of data or data in search of a theory? (2018) · cites this paper as Geller & Moss, 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GELLER, A., & MOSS, S.
Affiliations
Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
Venue
Advances in Complex Systems
Published
2008-04
Volume
11
Issue
02
Pages
321-335
ISSN
  • 0219-5259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1793-6802
OpenAlex
W2169812579
Cited by
44
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Complex Systems (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
solidarity networks, power structures, neopatrimonialism, Afghan society, social fragmentation, agent-based modeling, social network growth, small-world networks, conflict

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