Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32645047›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Noise induced unanimity and disorder in opinion formation.

Agnieszka Kowalska-Styczeń, Krzysztof Malarz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Agnieszka Kowalska-StyczeńSilesian University of Technology, Faculty of Organisation and Management, Zabrze, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7404-9638
Krzysztof MalarzAGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9980-0363
AGH University of Krakow · PLSilesian University of Technology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose an opinion dynamics model based on Latané's social impact theory. Actors in this model are heterogeneous and, in addition to opinions, are characterised by their varying levels of persuasion and support. The model is tested for two and three initial opinions randomly distributed among actors. We examine how the noise (randomness of behaviour) and the flow of information among actors affect the formation and spread of opinions. Our main research involves the process of opinion formation and finding phases of the system in terms of parameters describing noise and flow of the information for two and three opinions available in the system. The results show that opinion formation and spread are influenced by both (i) flow of information among actors (effective range of interactions among actors) and (ii) noise (randomness in adopting opinions). The noise not only leads to opinions disorder but also it promotes consensus under certain conditions. In disordered phase and when the exchange of information is spatially effectively limited, various faces of disorder are observed, including system states, where the signatures of self-organised criticality manifest themselves as scale-free probability distribution function of cluster sizes. Then increase of noise level leads system to disordered random state. The critical noise level above which histograms of opinion clusters' sizes loose their scale-free character increases with increase of the easy of information flow.

Indexed as

AttitudeCluster AnalysisHumansProbabilitySocial BehaviorTemperature

Identifiers

PMID32645047
PMCPMC7347143
OpenAlexW3042060575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.