ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Consensus, Polarization and Hysteresis in the Three-State Noisy
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Suicidal Distress and Daily Well-Being: A New Model of Social Hysteresis.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Vanishing Opinions in Latané Model of Opinion Formation.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Hybrid Opinion Formation and Polarization Model.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this work, we address the question of the role of the influence of group size on the emergence of various collective social phenomena, such as consensus, polarization and social hysteresis. To answer this question, we study the three-state noisy q-voter model with bounded confidence, in which agents can be in one of three states: two extremes (leftist and rightist) and centrist. We study the model on a complete graph within the mean-field approach and show that, depending on the size q of the influence group, saddle-node bifurcation cascades of different length appear and different collective phenomena are possible. In particular, for all values of q>1, social hysteresis is observed. Furthermore, for small values of q∈(1,4), disagreement, polarization and domination of centrists (a consensus understood as the general agreement, not unanimity) can be achieved but not the domination of extremists. The latter is possible only for larger groups of influence. Finally, by comparing our model to others, we discuss how a small change in the rules at the microscopic level can dramatically change the macroscopic behavior of the model.
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.