ArticleScientific reports2023
Discovery and characterisation of socially polarised communities on social media.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drivers of health polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.Science advances · 2025Pooled it
- Historical reconstruction of human moralization with word association and text corpora.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Personal values clusters and their associations to social media behaviors and psychological well-being.BMC psychology · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social polarisation processes have become a central phenomenon for the explanation of population behavioural dynamics in today's societies. Although recent works offer solutions for the detection of polarised political communities in social media, there is still a lack of works that allow an adequate characterization of the specific topics on which these divides between social groups are articulated. Our study aims to discover and characterise antagonistic communities on Twitter based on a method that combines the identification of authorities and textual classifiers around three public debates that have recently produced major controversies: (1) vaccination; (2) climate change; and (3) abortion. The proposed method allows the capture of polarised communities with little effort, requiring only the selection of some terms that characterise the topic and some initial authorities. Our findings show that the processes of social polarisation can vary considerably depending on the subject on which the debates are articulated. Specifically, polarisation manifests more prominently in the realms of vaccination and abortion, whereas this divide is less apparent in the context of climate change.
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.