Skip to content

NotablePeer-reviewed

Educational intervention can rewire village social networks

ByMarios Papamichalis, Laura Forastiere, Edoardo M. Airoldi, Nicholas A. Christakis

Yale University · Temple University

What it is

Social networks shape behaviour, carry information and underpin collective action, and they can be exploited in the design of interventions. They obey fundamental principles such as the degree distribution, yet they can still evolve as ties form and break. Through a randomized controlled trial of 8,331 people in 110 remote Honduran villages, the authors evaluate the secondary effects of a 22-month public-health intervention on the social-network structure that was already there. A varying fraction of each village's households received the intervention, and villages where nobody received it served as the primary reference group. In low-dosage villages, where 5-30% of households were treated, people who received the intervention tended to sever ties with untreated individuals they had previously gone to for health advice. In high-dosage villages, 50-100%, treated individuals increased their ties. These average changes are explained mainly by tie dynamics: treated-treated pairs persist and form new links, while treated-untreated ties dissolve. A mediation analysis indicates that absorbing health information increases the likelihood of a tie forming and persisting. The rewiring patterns generally lasted 3 years after the intervention ceased, and although the intervention delivered health information, it reshaped friendship and financial ties too, not just health-advice connections. In aggregate, the authors write, a new information regime acted as a kind of social institution, rewiring individual connections even as the overall degree distribution of village-wide networks stayed relatively stable.

Why it matters

A health-education trial across 110 Honduran villages changed who people were tied to, and the pattern held 3 years after it ended. Where only 5-30% of households were treated, those who took part tended to drop ties to untreated neighbours they had gone to for health advice; where 50-100% were treated, they gained ties. The shift came mainly from treated pairs keeping and forming links while treated-untreated ties dissolved, and it reached friendship and financial ties, not only health-advice ones, even though the village networks' overall degree distribution stayed relatively stable.

Underlined numbers link to their source. Every metric and quoted figure is listed under Sources and data below.

Filed underComplex Network Analysis Techniques, Social Capital and Networks, Education in Rural Contexts

Scored 2026-10-20How scoring works

The Frontier Score, in full

How this entry's score is built, term by term. Open any pillar to see each sub-metric's raw value, how it maps to 0 to 100, and a link to its source (OpenAlex for most sub-metrics that combine several sources, NIH iCite where its ratio is part of field-normalized impact).
Evidence 96Impact 40Novelty 81
The three pillars as one shape: a result strong on every axis fills the triangle.
How the Frontier Score is calculated for this breakthrough
TermScoreWeightPoints
EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.96× 0.2523.9
ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.40× 0.259.9
NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.81× 0.5040.5
Weighted pillars74.2
Frontier recency0 months since publication× 0.99
IntegrityNot retracted× 1
Frontier Score74
Confidence: Early signal. Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up. Corroborated beyond citations (cited on Wikipedia).Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up. Corroborated beyond citations (cited on Wikipedia).

Every sub-metric, traced to its source

Evidence96
Evidence sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Peer review & venueWhether the work has cleared peer review, and how selective its venue is. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient: before citations accrue, a fresh result in one of the five general flagships (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) is a stronger evidence signal than one in a selective specialist or society journal, which in turn outranks one in a legitimate but very high-volume mega-journal, and any of them outranks a preprint that has not been reviewed at all.Maps to 0 to 100: Peer-reviewed article graded by venue tier: flagship journal (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) 100; selective journal (every other journal the index admits: the specialist journals of those families, JAMA, PNAS, Physical Review Letters and X) 90; high-volume mega-journal (Nature Communications, Science Advances) 78; venue not recorded 88. Other records: review 90, book 70, dataset 60, preprint 45, an article that has not been peer reviewed 45, other 55.Peer-reviewed, flagship journal1000.3030.0OpenAlex type / primary_location / source
CorroborationIndependent corroboration that the result is on the record and reaching beyond a single source, read as the BREADTH of independent records rather than the size of the citation pile. Counts how many of the five independent citation indices (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC) report a citation count for the work at all, zero included, plus orthogonal, non-citation lines of corroboration: citation in Wikipedia, registered clinical trials or clinical citations, released datasets or software or a repository copy, public funding on record, and technical-community discussion. Citation MAGNITUDE is deliberately judged under Impact, not here, so Evidence and Impact measure genuinely different things instead of both rewarding the same citation pile twice.Maps to 0 to 100: Starts at 28 and rises by 9 for each of the five independent citation indices that returns a citation count for the work (zero counts; OpenCitations returns zero even for a DOI it does not hold) and by 6 for each orthogonal non-citation line (Wikipedia, clinical trials or clinical citations, open datasets, software or a repository copy, public funding, community discussion), up to the top of the 0-100 scale.5 of 5 citation indices report a count, 2 independent non-citation lines850.3025.5OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC, DataCite, NIH RePORTER, Wikipedia, Hacker News count of indices that report a count for the work + orthogonal reach
VerifiabilityHow openly the result can be read, reused, and reproduced. Rewards open access, a Creative Commons BY or CC0 license, a green repository copy anyone can archive, openly minable full text, and released datasets or software a reader can actually run. Cross-checked across OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, and DataCite.Maps to 0 to 100: Closed access 45; open access 88; any Creative Commons BY license (including the NC, ND and SA variants) or CC0 100. A repository copy raises the floor to 85, openly minable full text to 90, and released data or software to 92.Open access (hybrid), CC-BY-NC-ND, repository copy1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, DataCite is_oa / license / has_repository_copy / open datasets
IntegrityRetraction and post-publication correction status. A retracted result is not evidence of anything and collapses the whole Frontier Score; a correction or expression of concern is a softer flag. A correction the publisher labels as its own error (a Publisher Correction) is not a flag on the work. Read across OpenAlex and Crossref (both update-to and updated-by notices).Maps to 0 to 100: Clean 100 (also when the only notice is a Publisher Correction); a correction or expression of concern 75; retracted 0. Flagged if OpenAlex OR Crossref records the notice.No retraction or concern on record1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Crossref is_retracted / update-to / updated-by
Impact40
Impact sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Field-normalized impactImpact relative to the world average for the same field, year, and type, so a small field and a large field are judged fairly. Triangulates three independent field-normalized measures: OpenAlex's Field-Weighted Citation Impact, its citation percentile within the exact field-and-year cohort, and the NIH iCite Relative Citation Ratio. 1.0x is average; the percentile is the share of same-field, same-year work it out-cites.Maps to 0 to 100: Each ratio (1.0 = field average) maps 1.0 to 50, 3.0 to 75, 9.0 to 90; the field+year percentile maps directly (top 1% -> ~99). The available measures are averaged. When none is available yet (very recent work), this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.3.3x FWCI, top 6% of field-year vs field860.4538.5OpenAlex, NIH iCite fwci / citation_normalized_percentile / relative_citation_ratio
Influential citationsCitations that genuinely build on the work rather than mention it in passing (Semantic Scholar's influential-citation measure). A sharper signal of real impact than a raw count.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 15 influential citations maps to 50, and none maps to 0. When Semantic Scholar has no measure for the work, this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.0 influential00.200.0Semantic Scholar influentialCitationCount
Citation velocityCitations received in the trailing twelve months (estimated from yearly citation counts: this year's so far plus the share of last year's that falls inside the window), judged as a rate rather than a lifetime total. Momentum is what a frontier index cares about: a result being taken up fast right now is landing, whether its lifetime pile is large or still small. Where an expected field citation rate is known, the momentum is also read relative to it, so a fast-moving result in a quiet field is not overlooked.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 30 citations in the last twelve months maps to 50. When NIH iCite provides the field's expected rate, this is blended evenly with the ratio of observed to expected momentum.1 in last 12 months30.351.1OpenAlex, NIH iCite counts_by_year / field_citation_rate
Novelty81
Novelty sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Conceptual noveltyHow genuinely new the contribution is, measured at publication from the work's OWN content, not its date: how atypical its combination of research areas is versus all prior work, and whether it builds on a broad, deep base rather than only the newest papers in a fast-moving area. This is what separates a real advance from a recent-but-commodity result, and it needs no forward citations, so it is stable for brand-new work. An honestly noisy proxy (even state-of-the-art novelty measures agree only moderately with expert judgment), so it carries bounded weight and never drives the ranking alone.Maps to 0 to 100: Two publication-time signals, each 0-100. The primary one is atypical combination: how unusual the work's median pairing of research topics is versus the prior literature, by pointwise mutual information (a pairing made far more often than chance scores low). The second, foundational reach (the median age of the work's references and the share older than five years), can only lift it: when reach is higher, the score rises by 35% of the gap, and it is never lowered. When only one signal is measurable it is used alone; when neither is (a work too thin in topics or references), this sub-metric is left out and Novelty is computed from the other three. A review is damped to 60%.Median topic pairing Social Capital and Networks x Education in Rural Contexts (51 prior works made this pairing); builds on refs a median 12.3y deep760.4534.2OpenAlex topics + referenced_works (publication-time)
RecencyHow recently the work appeared. The frontier is now, so newer scores higher.Maps to 0 to 100: Exponential decay with a 12-month half-life from the publication date.This month990.3029.7OpenAlex publication_date
Attention accelerationWhether attention is rising: citations in the latest full year versus the year before. Accelerating interest signals an active, opening frontier.Maps to 0 to 100: Latest/prior-year ratio: 1x maps to 50, 2x to 75, 4x to 100. The prior year counts as at least 3 citations, so a jump from one citation to a few is not read as explosive growth. With no citations in the latest full year it reads as unknown, and unknown is neutral (50).Not enough history500.105.0OpenAlex counts_by_year
Edge of reviewPreprints sit ahead of the peer-review process and brand-new papers have only just cleared it. Both earn novelty here (while a preprint is discounted under Evidence), because that is where the frontier forms first.Maps to 0 to 100: Preprint 95; any other record 80 when under 6 months old, 65 under 18 months, 45 after that.Peer-reviewed record800.1512.0OpenAlex type / publication_date
ProvenanceAll sources

Sources and data

The source figures behind this entry, grouped by the source that holds them: up to five citation indices cross-checked, field-normalized impact, then real-world reach (Wikipedia, community discussion, clinical trials, released data and public funding) where it exists. Each value links to its record.

OpenAlex

Primary record
Total citations
1
Field-weighted citation impact
3.3x field average
Citation percentile
Top 6% of its field-year
Citations, recent 12 months
1
Publication date
2026-10-14

Crossref

Citations
0
Works it builds on
47

Semantic Scholar

Citations, all versions
0
Influential citations
0

OpenCitations

Citations
0

Europe PMC

Citations
0

Unpaywall

Reuse license
CC-BY-NC-ND

Wikipedia

Wikipedia articles citing it
1

Figures quoted in the write-up

FigureValueSource
People in the randomized controlled trial (Across 110 remote Honduran villages)8,331Nature
Villages in the trial (Remote villages in Honduras; villages where nobody received the intervention were the primary reference group)110Nature
Length of the public-health intervention (Its secondary effects on pre-existing social-network structure were evaluated)22 monthsNature
Share of households treated in a low-dosage village (There, treated people tended to sever ties with untreated individuals they had gone to for health advice)5-30%Nature
Share of households treated in a high-dosage village (There, treated individuals increased their ties)50-100%Nature
How long the rewiring patterns generally lasted after the intervention ceased (Measured after the 22-month intervention ended)three yearsNature
For the authors

Show this score where your work lives

A badge for your lab page, your CV or the paper's code repository. It links readers to this entry, and it always carries the entry's current score.
This paper's Frontier Score badge, as it appears where you place itLive preview
<a href="https://frontierresearch.co/breakthroughs/educational-intervention-can-rewire-village-social-netwo-w7203785248?utm_source=badge&amp;utm_medium=badge&amp;utm_campaign=author-kit"><img src="https://frontierresearch.co/api/badge/W7203785248.svg" alt="Frontier Score for this paper" height="20"></a>

For a lab or personal website, a CV page, or anywhere that takes HTML.

The number is live. The badge is drawn from the same signals as this page, so it never shows a score the entry does not. Every entry is re-checked weekly against the same public sources, and a result's standing eases as it ages, so the active edge of the field stays on top. How scoring works

Something wrong or out of date? Write to hello@frontierresearch.co and the entry will be corrected.

Other frontiersThe whole field

Back to the Frontier Index, or browse every breakthrough by date.

The Frontier Brief

The week's Other frontiers, scored.

Every Monday, up to six of the week's new Other frontiers entries in the index, each with its score and a one-line read on why it matters, then the week's best from the rest of the frontier. What you get

Prefer a feed reader? Follow Other frontiers by RSS

One email a week: up to six of the week's new Other frontiers entries, scored, then the best elsewhere. Unsubscribe anytime.