ReviewNature2024
Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling.
Review in Nature, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Article
- Article
- Turning policy implications into policy impact: Lessons from behavioral science in financial markets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The messenger matters: Behavioral responses to sex education in a cluster randomized trial.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Article
- Chain Restaurant Calorie Posting Laws, Obesity, and Consumer Welfare.Journal of the European Economic Association · 2025Article
- Article
- Behavioral nudges prevent loan delinquencies at scale: A 13-million-person field experiment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability: experimental evidence from Colombia.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Heterogeneity in effect size estimates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social scientists have increasingly turned to the experimental method to understand human behaviour. One critical issue that makes solving social problems difficult is scaling up the idea from a small group to a larger group in more diverse situations. The urgency of scaling policies impacts us every day, whether it is protecting the health and safety of a community or enhancing the opportunities of future generations. Yet, a common result is that, when we scale up ideas, most experience a 'voltage drop'-that is, on scaling, the cost-benefit profile depreciates considerably. Here I argue that, to reduce voltage drops, we must optimally generate policy-based evidence. Optimality requires answering two crucial questions: what information should be generated and in what sequence. The economics underlying the science of scaling provides insights into these questions, which are in some cases at odds with conventional approaches. For example, there are important situations in which I advocate flipping the traditional social science research model to an approach that, from the beginning, produces the type of policy-based evidence that the science of scaling demands. To do so, I propose augmenting efficacy trials by including relevant tests of scale in the original discovery process, which forces the scientist to naturally start with a recognition of the big picture: what information do I need to have scaling confidence?
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.