Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39900589›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Reframing the filter bubble through diverse scale effects in online music consumption.

Dougal Shakespeare, Victor Chareyron, Camille Roth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Dougal ShakespeareCAMS, Centre d'Analyse et de Mathématique Sociale, CNRS/EHESS, Paris, France. dougal.shakespeare@ehess.fr.
Victor ChareyronCAMS, Centre d'Analyse et de Mathématique Sociale, CNRS/EHESS, Paris, France.
Camille RothCAMS, Centre d'Analyse et de Mathématique Sociale, CNRS/EHESS, Paris, France.

Funding

RECORDS ANR-2019-CE38-0013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of platforms' algorithmic curation devices on users' consumption diversity has long since been the subject of debate in popular culture and academia alike. In recent years, methods to concretely appraise this debate have taken a comparative turn, with emerging research strands seeking to assess the influence of algorithmic recommendations relative to users' organic behaviour (i.e. those with a relative lack of algorithmic influence). Nevertheless, as the contribution of this work clearly shows, contradictory findings that algorithmic devices may both foster "bubbly" confinement dynamics and diverse exploration appear to stem, at least in part, from tensions surrounding information representation and scale. Taking into account various scales, affordances, and diversity measures, the contribution of this work conducts an empirical analysis of approximately 50,000 Deezer users' artist consumption histories across different affordances offering various degrees of algorithmic assistance. Transitioning through three scales of increasing aggregation-intra-sessions, inter-sessions and inter-affordances-our work underscores how shifts in perspective, particularly in information representation, can yield markedly different conclusions concerning the role of algorithmic devices in fostering diversity. However, when considered collectively, these perspectives coalesce to provide a nuanced update to the seminal filter bubble narrative: algorithmic curation devices may introduce more novelty than what users' achieve organically, yet concurrently, this novelty is more semantically confined. Consequently, our research significantly contributes towards an enriched understanding of the intricate dynamics surrounding on-platform algorithmic devices.

Identifiers

PMID39900589
PMCPMC11790900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.