更改

==Reactions==

==Reactions==

===Alternative numbers===

===Alternative numbers 其他社会关系极限数===

Anthropologist H. Russell Bernard, [[Peter Killworth]] and associates have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, which is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth [[median]] of 231 is lower, due to an upward skew in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth estimate of the maximum likelihood of the size of a person's [[social network]] is based on a number of field studies using different methods in various populations. It is not an average of study averages but a repeated finding.<ref>{{cite journal |last=McCarty |first=C. |last2=Killworth |first2=P. D. |last3=Bernard |first3=H. R. |last4=Johnsen |first4=E. |last5=Shelley |first5=G. |title=Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size |journal=Human Organization |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=28–39 |year=2000 |doi= 10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y|url=https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Comparing%20Two%20Methods%20for%20Estimating%20Network%20Size_0.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Bernard | first1 = H. R. | last2 = Shelley | first2 = G. A. | last3 = Killworth | first3 = P. | title = How much of a network does the GSS and RSW dredge up? | doi = 10.1016/0378-8733(87)90017-7 | journal = Social Networks | volume = 9 | pages = 49–61 | year = 1987 | pmid =  | pmc = }}</ref><ref>H. Russell Bernard. "Honoring Peter Killworth's contribution to social network theory." Paper presented to the University of Southampton, 28 September 2006. http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~ufruss/</ref> Nevertheless, the Bernard–Killworth number has not been popularized as widely as Dunbar's.

Anthropologist H. Russell Bernard, [[Peter Killworth]] and associates have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, which is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth [[median]] of 231 is lower, due to an upward skew in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth estimate of the maximum likelihood of the size of a person's [[social network]] is based on a number of field studies using different methods in various populations. It is not an average of study averages but a repeated finding.<ref>{{cite journal |last=McCarty |first=C. |last2=Killworth |first2=P. D. |last3=Bernard |first3=H. R. |last4=Johnsen |first4=E. |last5=Shelley |first5=G. |title=Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size |journal=Human Organization |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=28–39 |year=2000 |doi= 10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y|url=https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Comparing%20Two%20Methods%20for%20Estimating%20Network%20Size_0.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Bernard | first1 = H. R. | last2 = Shelley | first2 = G. A. | last3 = Killworth | first3 = P. | title = How much of a network does the GSS and RSW dredge up? | doi = 10.1016/0378-8733(87)90017-7 | journal = Social Networks | volume = 9 | pages = 49–61 | year = 1987 | pmid =  | pmc = }}</ref><ref>H. Russell Bernard. "Honoring Peter Killworth's contribution to social network theory." Paper presented to the University of Southampton, 28 September 2006. http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~ufruss/</ref> Nevertheless, the Bernard–Killworth number has not been popularized as widely as Dunbar's.

Anthropologist H. Russell Bernard, Peter Killworth and associates have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, which is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth median of 231 is lower, due to an upward skew in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth estimate of the maximum likelihood of the size of a person's social network is based on a number of field studies using different methods in various populations. It is not an average of study averages but a repeated finding. Nevertheless, the Bernard–Killworth number has not been popularized as widely as Dunbar's.

Anthropologist H. Russell Bernard, Peter Killworth and associates have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, which is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth median of 231 is lower, due to an upward skew in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth estimate of the maximum likelihood of the size of a person's social network is based on a number of field studies using different methods in various populations. It is not an average of study averages but a repeated finding. Nevertheless, the Bernard–Killworth number has not been popularized as widely as Dunbar's.

人类学家 h · 拉塞尔 · 伯纳德、彼得 · 基尔沃思和他的同事们在美国进行了各种各样的实地研究，得出了关系平均数的估计数---- 290，大致是邓巴估计数的两倍。伯纳德-基尔沃思中位数231较低，这是由于分布的向上倾斜，但仍然明显大于邓巴的估计。伯纳德-基尔沃斯对一个人的社交网络规模的最大可能性的估计是基于一系列在不同人群中使用不同方法的实地研究。这不是研究平均值的平均值，而是一个重复的发现。然而，伯纳德-基尔沃斯数并没有像邓巴数那样被广泛推广。

人类学家拉塞尔·伯纳德H. Russell Bernard，彼得·基尔沃思Peter Killworth及其同事在美国进行了各种田野研究，之后得出的社会平均关系数为290，约为邓巴估计的两倍。伯纳德-基尔沃思Bernard-Killworth的中位数为231，这是由于分布上的偏斜所致，但仍大大高于邓巴（Dunbar）的估计。伯纳德-基尔沃思对一个人的社交网络规模最大可能性的估计，是基于在不同人群中使用不同方法进行的大量实地研究。它不是研究平均值的平均值，而是反复去搜寻的结果。然而，伯纳德-基尔沃思数还没有像邓巴氏那样广泛普及。

 

 

=== Criticism 评论 ===

=== Criticism 评论 ===