Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40422476›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

The Physics and Metaphysics of Social Powers: Bridging Cognitive Processing and Social Dynamics, a New Perspective on Power Through Active Inference.

Mahault Albarracin, Sonia de Jager, David Hyland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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. 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

3 authors.

Mahault AlbarracinVERSES.ai, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0916-4645
Sonia de JagerErasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4196-2698
David HylandDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9726-3509

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Power operates across multiple scales, from physical action to complex social dynamics, and is constrained by fundamental principles. In the social realm, power is shaped by interactions and cognitive capacity: socially-facilitated empowerment enhances an agent's information-processing ability, either by delegating tasks or leveraging collective resources. This computational advantage expands access to policies and buffers against vulnerabilities, amplifying an individual's or group's influence. In AIF, social power emerges from the capacity to attract attention and process information effectively. Our semantic habitat-narratives, ideologies, representations, etc.-functions through attentional scripts that coordinate social behavior. Shared scripts shape power dynamics by structuring collective attention. Speculative scripts serve as cognitive tools for low-risk learning, allowing agents to explore counterfactuals and refine predictive models. However, dominant scripts can reinforce misinformation, echo chambers, and power imbalances by directing collective attention toward self-reinforcing policies. We argue that power through scripts stems not only from associations with influential agents but also from the ability to efficiently process information, creating a feedback loop of increasing influence. This reframes power beyond traditional material and cultural dimensions, towards an informational and computational paradigm-what we term possibilistic power, i.e., the capacity to explore and shape future trajectories. Understanding these mechanisms has critical implications for political organization and technological foresight.

Indexed as

active inferencenarrativespowerscriptssemantic attraction(shared) attention

Identifiers

PMID40422476
PMCPMC12111226

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.