Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42081582›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

A political spectrograph: High-resolution examinations of the United States' ideological landscape.

David Sabin-Miller, Mary C McGrath, Marisa C Eisenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.

David Sabin-MillerCenter for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6952-9752
Mary C McGrathDepartment of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States of America.
Marisa C EisenbergCenter for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of ideology is central to political discourse and dynamics, and is often cast as falling primarily on a one-dimensional scale from "left-wing/liberal" to "right-wing/conservative", but the validity of this simple quantitative treatment is uncertain. Here we investigate and compare various high-resolution measures of ideology, both internal (self-identification and policy-stance agreements) and external (estimating the ideological position of political opinion statements). We find strong consistency between internal measures, although policy-stance agreement ideology yields a systematically centralizing and liberalizing portrait relative to more abstract "liberal/conservative" measures. More remarkably, we find that external assessments of ideology, while noisy, are largely consistent across observers, even for highly dissonant ideas and regardless of speaker identity markers. This supports the use of these responses as meaningful, comparable quantities, which general members of the public reliably project from the abstract space of political thought onto a shared one-dimensional domain.

Identifiers

PMID42081582
PMCPMC13138742

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.