Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411091›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Toward building deliberative digital media: from subversion to consensus.

Alex Pentland, Lily Tsai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 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

2 authors.

Alex PentlandStanford Digital Economy Lab, Stanford University, 353 Jane Stanford Way, Mail Code: 4115, Stanford, CA 94301, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-9983
Lily TsaiGovLab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 30 Wadsworth Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based and human-centric design of digital media platforms could reduce many of the problems of misinformation, polarization, and misaligned incentives that plague both society and individual organizations. With these sorts of design changes, it may become possible to build deliberative digital media that are useful both for discussions of contentious issues and for achieving successful collective action. In this Perspective paper, we discuss several issues in which current-day social science indicates the origin of these problems and suggests methods for improvement. Finally, we analyze a popular deliberative democracy platform to illustrate how social science might enable design of next-generation digital media suitable for democratic deliberation, and in which generative artificial intelligence might be useful.

Indexed as

consensusdeliberative democracydigital mediamisinformationpolarization

Identifiers

PMID39411091
PMCPMC11475399

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.