ArticleScientific reports2018
Group-based rewiring rules of binary opinion competition dynamics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The dynamics of competing opinions on networks has attracted multi-disciplinary research. Most modelling approaches assume uniform or heterogeneous behaviour among all individuals, while the role of distinctive group behaviour is rarely addressed. Here, we consider competition occurring between two opinion groups with bound rewiring rules, i.e., opinion-preferred rewiring, degree-preferred rewiring and random rewiring. When two opinions share a balanced initial proportion, opinion-preferred rewiring is superior to the other rules under low rewiring rates, and coexistence occurs under high rewiring rates. For unbalanced proportions, the best response rule for the minority/majority is unfixed, and this depends on the initial proportion and rewiring frequency. Furthermore, we find evolution processes for all competing cases belong to two categories. Evolution Category I shows an obvious correlation between opinion proportions and the density of discordant edges (connecting nodes with different opinions), and these trends can be effectively described by numerical approximations. However, for Evolution Category II, no such correlation exists for individuals or linking pairs, and an analysis of local structures reveals the emergence of large numbers of open triads with the same opinions, denoting group prevalence. This work broadens the understanding of opinion competition and inspires exploring group strategies employed in social dynamic systems.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.