ArticleScientific reports2023
Understanding who talks about what: comparison between the information treatment in traditional media and online discussions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
We study the dynamics of interactions between a traditional medium, the New York Times journal, and its followers in Twitter, using a massive dataset. It consists of the metadata of the articles published by the journal during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the posts published in Twitter by a large set of followers of the @nytimes account along with those published by a set of followers of several other media of different kind. The dynamics of discussions held in Twitter by exclusive followers of a medium show a strong dependence on the medium they follow: the followers of @FoxNews show the highest similarity to each other and a strong differentiation of interests with the general group. Our results also reveal the difference in the attention payed to U.S. presidential elections by the journal and by its followers, and show that the topic related to the "Black Lives Matter" movement started in Twitter, and was addressed later by the journal.
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.