ArticlePloS one2026
Cross-platform public judgment in a cultural heritage crisis: A topic modeling study of the Nanjing Museum donated-artifact controversy.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crises involving cultural institutions increasingly unfold across multiple platforms, where the same controversy is interpreted through different content formats, interaction structures, and community norms. This study develops distributed accountability as a function-based framework for examining how public demands for sanction, explanation, and relational repair are organized across platform environments. The study analyzes 64,349 publicly visible top-level comments from Douyin, Bilibili, and Rednote, organized into three event-anchored source-content groups concerning the Nanjing Museum donated-artifact controversy. BERTopic identified 49 substantive topics covering 42,126 comments. A higher-order thematic framework was subsequently applied and validated by two researchers, producing six substantive groupings mapped onto punitive, knowledge-based, and ethical accountability functions. Under the primary coding specification, ethical accountability accounted for the largest share of classified comments, although this absolute ranking was sensitive to the treatment of the largest disputed topic. Across event-anchored groups, donation ethics was relatively more prominent in discussion attached to the initial response. Investigation-oriented and personalized-blame themes were relatively more prominent in later groups. Cross-platform differences were more stable. Douyin showed a relatively stronger punitive profile, and Bilibili showed a relatively stronger knowledge-based profile across alternative coding specifications. The overall platform-function association remained small. These findings indicate that platform differences concern the relative organization of accountability discourse, not the presence or absence of particular accountability functions. The study extends research on platformized public judgment and institutional crisis governance by showing how functionally differentiated accountability demands coexist within a shared institutional crisis.
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.