ArticlePloS one2024
Same old story with a different ending: Homophily and preferential selection of information within the US climate policy network.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has been perceived as a substantial shift away from the history of more contentious climate politics in the US. We apply social network methods to interrogate an updated dataset that assesses the degree to which recent policy outcomes are a shift away from earlier policies and positions. We empirically test for homophily, a building block of polarisation, analysing four waves of survey data collected over 12 years from the community of political elites engaged in the issue of climate politics. Using Exponential Random Graph (ERG) modeling, we provide clear evidence that the stances of the top policy actors working on climate change have not shifted substantially. Instead, we document how the policy was successful due to its ability to combine the Administration's desire to support clean energy along with fossil fuel interests' aims of expanding extraction and profiting from a transition away from fossil fuels.
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.