Because the CSS of the primary theme (to v10.1.6) overrides the font-family in the `.widget-area .widget a` section of style.css (see below), none of the genericons for the social media sites will display when using the JetPack Social Icons Widget.
<blockquote>
/*--------------------------------------------------------------
Fallback CSS for Customizer Library Styles
--------------------------------------------------------------*/
`body,
.widget-area .widget a {
color: #3C3C3C;
font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;
}`
</blockquote>
This behavior can be fixed by including the following code (best to do it in a <a href="https://codex.wordpress.org/Child_Themes" target="_blank">child theme</a>) instead:
`.widget-area .widget a {
color: #3C3C3C;
font-family: Genericons;
font-size: 2.5em;
margin: .10em;
}`
If you don't have a child-theme it can probably be fixed (without other erros/issues) by removing the line: `font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;`.
Hopefully Kaira will include a fix in an upcoming release.
@jlizier @Sydney_Library This sounds a lot like the functionality of LibX: http:/
Anand Sarwate built something similar, but far more rudimentary: https:/
Disconnected, fragmented, or united? a trans-disciplinary review of network science by Cesar Hidalgo
Hidalgo, C.A. Appl Netw Sci (2016) 1: 6. doi:10.1007/s41109-016-0010-3
Abstract
During decades the study of networks has been divided between the efforts of social scientists and natural scientists, two groups of scholars who often do not see eye to eye. In this review I present an effort to mutually translate the work conducted by scholars from both of these academic fronts hoping to continue to unify what has become a diverging body of literature. I argue that social and natural scientists fail to see eye to eye because they have diverging academic goals. Social scientists focus on explaining how context specific social and economic mechanisms drive the structure of networks and on how networks shape social and economic outcomes. By contrast, natural scientists focus primarily on modeling network characteristics that are independent of context, since their focus is to identify universal characteristics of systems instead of context specific mechanisms. In the following pages I discuss the differences between both of these literatures by summarizing the parallel theories advanced to explain link formation and the applications used by scholars in each field to justify their approach to network science. I conclude by providing an outlook on how these literatures can be further unified.