Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34295507›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

Using prediction markets to predict the outcomes in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's next-generation social science programme.

Domenico Viganola, Grant Buckles, Yiling Chen, Pablo Diego-Rosell, Magnus Johannesson, Brian A Nosek, Thomas Pfeiffer, Adam Siegel, Anna Dreber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Academics are more specific, and practitioners more sensitive, in forecasting interventions to strengthen democratic attitudes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    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

9 authors.

Domenico ViganolaWorld Bank Group, Washington D.C., USA.
Grant BucklesGallup Inc, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5901-4317
Yiling ChenPaulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Pablo Diego-RosellGallup Inc, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Magnus JohannessonDepartment of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Brian A NosekCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Thomas PfeifferNew Zealand Institute for Advanced Study, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0592-577X
Adam SiegelCultivate Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Anna DreberDepartment of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3989-9941

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is evidence that prediction markets are useful tools to aggregate information on researchers' beliefs about scientific results including the outcome of replications. In this study, we use prediction markets to forecast the results of novel experimental designs that test established theories. We set up prediction markets for hypotheses tested in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Next Generation Social Science (NGS2) programme. Researchers were invited to bet on whether 22 hypotheses would be supported or not. We define support as a test result in the same direction as hypothesized, with a Bayes factor of at least 10 (i.e. a likelihood of the observed data being consistent with the tested hypothesis that is at least 10 times greater compared with the null hypothesis). In addition to betting on this binary outcome, we asked participants to bet on the expected effect size (in Cohen's

Indexed as

hypothesispeer beliefsprediction markets

Identifiers

PMID34295507
PMCPMC8278038

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.