Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38622319›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Gaining a better understanding of online polarization by approaching it as a dynamic process.

Célina Treuillier, Sylvain Castagnos, Christèle Lagier, Armelle Brun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Célina TreuillierUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. celina.treuillier@loria.fr.
Sylvain CastagnosUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Christèle LagierAvignon Université, JPEG UPR 3788, Avignon, France.
Armelle BrunUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-20-CE23-0024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polarization is often a cliché, its conceptualization remains approximate and no consensus has been reached so far. Often simply seen as an inevitable result of the use of social networks, polarization cannot be viewed solely from an ideological or affective perspective. We propose to better understand the issue polarization by approaching it as a sequential process, drawing on a dual expertise in political and data sciences. We compare the polarization process between one mature debate (COVID-19 vaccine) and one emerging debate (Ukraine conflict) at the time of data collection. Both debates are studied on Twitter users, a highly politicized population, and on the French population to provide key elements beyond the traditional US context. This unprecedented analysis confirms that polarization varies over time, through a succession of specific periods, whose existence and duration depend on the maturity of the debate. Importantly, we highlight that polarization is paced by context-related events. Bearing this in mind, we pave the way for a new generation of personalized depolarization strategies, adapted to the context and maturity of debates.

Identifiers

PMID38622319
PMCPMC11018767

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.