Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33031437›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Prestige and homophily predict network structure for social learning of medicinal plant knowledge.

Matthew O Bond, Orou G Gaoue

Abstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Matthew O BondDepartment of Botany, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7674-5787
Orou G GaoueDepartment of Botany, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human subsistence societies have thrived in environmental extremes while maintaining biodiversity through social learning of ecological knowledge, such as techniques to prepare food and medicine from local resources. However, there is limited understanding of which processes shape social learning patterns and configuration in ecological knowledge networks, or how these processes apply to resource management and biological conservation. In this study, we test the hypothesis that the prestige (rarity or exclusivity) of knowledge shapes social learning networks. In addition, we test whether people tend to select who to learn from based on prestige (knowledge or reputation), and homophily (e.g., people of the same age or gender). We used interviews to assess five types of medicinal plant knowledge and how 303 people share this knowledge across four villages in Solomon Islands. We developed exponential random graph models (ERGMs) to test whether hypothesized patterns of knowledge sharing based on prestige and homophily are more common in the observed network than in randomly simulated networks of the same size. We found that prestige predicts five hypothesized network configurations and all three hypothesized learning patterns, while homophily predicts one of three hypothesized network configurations and five of the seven hypothesized learning patterns. These results compare the strength of different prestige and homophily effects on social learning and show how cultural practices such as intermarriage can affect certain aspects of prestige and homophily. By advancing our understanding of how prestige and homophily affect ecological knowledge networks, we identify which social learning patterns have the largest effects on biocultural conservation of ecological knowledge.

Indexed as

KnowledgePlants, MedicinalSocial LearningBiodiversityHumansInterviews as TopicMelanesiaSocial Networking

Identifiers

PMID33031437
PMCPMC7544085

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.