Table 1.
Approximate numbers of visitor and performing DJs at the selected festivals.
Fig 1.
Construction of the DJ citation network.
Table 2.
Negative binomial regressions predicting the number of citations per track t+1.
Fig 2.
Distribution of DJs by social positions.
The axes are the social position variables. We take the log on both social position variables: Betweenness Centrality and Clustering Coefficient. The red lines are the medians of both variables.
Fig 3.
Hybrid social positions of 30 most cited DJs.
This figure is a magnified cut-out of the upper right quadrant of Fig 2. The name-tagged DJs are well-known representatives of each musical style.
Fig 4.
Total citation network of DJs.
The figure shows the total citation network of the DJs by adding up the temporal networks from each time window. The node size represents the total number of citations by other DJs. The edge weight is presented by the thickness of the edge.
Fig 5.
Genre distribution of detected groups.
A total of 6 groups are detected using the fast greedy optimization algorithm: Group 1 (blue/Progressive House), Group 2 (orange/Dubstep, Drum, & Bass), Group 3 (green/Electro House), Group 4 (pink/Trance), Group 5 (brown/Techno, Tech House) and Group 6 (yellow/Hardcore, Hard Dance).
Fig 6.
Location of 30 most cited DJs in the citation network.
The figure is an enlargement of the central part of Fig 4. The name-tagged DJs are the same as in Fig 3.
Table 3.
Negative binomial regressions predicting the number of citations per track t+1 (CEM sample).