ArticleSocial studies of science2026
Predictions, Uncertainty, and Collective Epistemic Work: How Projected Futures Informed and Misinformed Enactments of Covid-19.
Article in Social studies of science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
By connecting an uncertain present to a potential future, predictions and other forms of projected futures construct meaningful contexts on which actors can lean when seeking to act in the face of uncertainty. This article outlines the background and careers of many, and often contradicting, futures that informed the collective work to define and represent Covid-19 in Sweden during the first half of 2020. Through an analysis of press briefing transcripts, in-depth interviews with centrally placed informants, and a timeline of Covid-19-related events, debates, and policies in Sweden, this article outlines how enactments of Covid-19 evolved over time-from straightforward comparisons to past experiences, to repurposed models intended to make the pandemic calculable, to survey-based extrapolations produced by the Public Health Agency. The article demonstrates how a combination of contextual factors and a continuously evolving knowledge base led some enactments to become more influential than others, allowing them to influence evolving decisions and strategies. The article highlights the role of competing voices and perspectives in the collective epistemic work performed during the pandemic and explores Covid-19 as a multiple entity composed of a patchwork of data and assumptions. Depending on what futures informed them, these enactments varied from catastrophic and dystopian, to hopeful promises of an eventual return to normality.
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.