Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38539724›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Opinion Models, Election Data, and Political Theory.

Matthias Gsänger, Volker Hösel, Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach, Johannes Müller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthias GsängerInstitute of Political Science and Sociology, Julius-Maximilians-University (JMU), 97074 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8379-1132
Volker HöselSchool for Computation, Information and Technology, TU München (TUM), 80333 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5566-2090
Christoph Mohamad-KlotzbachInstitute of Political Science and Sociology, Julius-Maximilians-University (JMU), 97074 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5078-5393
Johannes MüllerSchool for Computation, Information and Technology, TU München (TUM), 80333 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5892-8598

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A unifying setup for opinion models originating in statistical physics and stochastic opinion dynamics are developed and used to analyze election data. The results are interpreted in the light of political theory. We investigate the connection between Potts (Curie-Weiss) models and stochastic opinion models in the view of the Boltzmann distribution and stochastic Glauber dynamics. We particularly find that the q-voter model can be considered as a natural extension of the Zealot model, which is adapted by Lagrangian parameters. We also discuss weak and strong effects (also called extensive and nonextensive) continuum limits for the models. The results are used to compare the Curie-Weiss model, two q-voter models (weak and strong effects), and a reinforcement model (weak effects) in explaining electoral outcomes in four western democracies (United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany). We find that particularly the weak effects models are able to fit the data (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) where the weak effects reinforcement model performs best (AIC). Additionally, we show how the institutional structure shapes the process of opinion formation. By focusing on the dynamics of opinion formation preceding the act of voting, the models discussed in this paper give insights both into the empirical explanation of elections as such, as well as important aspects of the theory of democracy. Therefore, this paper shows the usefulness of an interdisciplinary approach in studying real world political outcomes by using mathematical models.

Indexed as

data analysis and model comparisonelectionsGlauber dynamicsinterdisciplinarityopinion dynamicsPotts modelsq-voter modelreinforcement modelvoting behaviorweak and strong effects continuum limit

Identifiers

PMID38539724
PMCPMC10968957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.