ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2022
Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term media effects on public attitudes toward science in Switzerland: A panel survey of the Swiss population.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Climate change perspectives in Lithuania: exploring science attitudes and personality correlations.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic: A typology of internet users in South Africa.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of Australian climate change and COVID-19 vaccine audience segments shows climate skeptics can be vaccine enthusiasts.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past years, pundits, journalists, and others have diagnosed fundamental shifts in the public's perception of science. Many of them have posited that audiences are becoming more critical toward science or that people trust science less. However, systematic empirical analyses of such assertions are lacking. Based on panel survey data (
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.