Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39587900›Full record

ArticleTranscultural psychiatry2024

Laurence J Kirmayer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transcultural psychiatry, 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. Communicating Risk in the Age of Misinformation: Empirical Frameworks for Understanding Stakeholder Trust.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    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

1 author.

Laurence J KirmayerDivision of Social & Transcultural Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6228-1739

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent challenges to scientific authority in relation to the COVID pandemic, climate change, and the proliferation of conspiracy theories raise questions about the nature of knowledge and conviction. This article considers problems of social epistemology that are central to current predicaments about popular or public knowledge and the status of science. From the perspective of social epistemology, knowing and believing are not simply individual cognitive processes but based on participation in social systems, networks, and niches. As such, knowledge and conviction can be understood in terms of the dynamics of epistemic communities, which create specific forms of authority, norms, and practices that include styles of reasoning, habits of thought and modes of legitimation. Efforts to understand the dynamics of delusion and pathological conviction have something useful to teach us about our vulnerability as knowers and believers. However, this individual psychological account needs to be supplemented with a broader social view of the politics of knowledge that can inform efforts to create a healthy information ecology and strengthen the civil institutions that allow us to ground our action in well-informed picture of the world oriented toward mutual recognition, respect, diversity, and coexistence.

Indexed as

KnowledgeCommunicationCOVID-19HumansSciencecognitive biasesconspiracy theoriesdelusionsdisinformationepistemic communitiesmisinformationscience educationsocial epistemologysocial mediaways of knowing

Identifiers

PMID39587900
PMCPMC11629592

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.