ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019
Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public responses to biodiversity loss terminology and crisis framing.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
- Data-driven scenario analysis supports the revival of historic silvoarable systems for carbon smart rural landscapes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Competing for research funding: Key elements impacting the evaluation of grant proposal.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Adapting to Climate Change: Leveraging Systems-Focused Multidisciplinary Research to Promote Resilience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Public trust and mistrust of climate science: A meta-narrative review.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Review
- A Systematic Study Site Selection Protocol to Determine Environmental Flows in the Headwater Catchments of the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Is coronavirus-related research becoming more interdisciplinary? A perspective of co-occurrence analysis and diversity measure of scientific articles.Technological forecasting and social change · 2022Article
- Climate Change Warning Labels on Gas Pumps: The Role of Public Opinion Formation in Climate Change Mitigation Policies.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2021Review
- Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking interdisciplinarity.Climatic change · 2021Article
- Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Evaluating science communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- The Science of Science Communication III.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We describe two interdisciplinary projects in which natural scientists and engineers, as well as psychologists and other behavioral scientists, worked together to better communicate about climate change, including mitigation and impacts. One project focused on understanding and informing public perceptions of an emerging technology to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, as well as other low-carbon electricity-generation technologies. A second project focused on public understanding about carbon dioxide's residence time in the atmosphere. In both projects, we applied the mental-models approach, which aims to design effective communications by using insights from interdisciplinary teams of experts and mental models elicited from intended audience members. In addition to summarizing our findings, we discuss the process of interdisciplinary collaboration that we pursued in framing and completing both projects. We conclude by describing what we think we have learned about the conditions that supported our ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations.
Indexed as
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.