The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Ideological polarization around environmental issues—especially climate change—have increased in the last 20 years. This polarization has led to public uncertainty, and in some cases, policy stalemate. Much attention has been given to understanding individual attitudes, but much less to the larger organizational and financial roots of polarization. This gap is due to prior difficulties in gathering and analyzing quantitative data about these complex and furtive processes. This paper uses comprehensive text and network data to show how corporate funding influences the production and actual thematic content of polarization efforts. It highlights the important influence of private funding in public knowledge and politics, and provides researchers a methodological model for future studies that blend large-scale textual discourse with social networks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
stm : An R Package for Structural Topic Models
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v091.i02 · Cited by 1,714
Gauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091
Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement
Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1295 · Cited by 441
Defeating the merchants of doubt
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/465686a · Cited by 292
Cited by
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis
Heberling, J. M., Miller, J. T., Noesgaard, D., Weingart, S. B., & Schigel, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2018093118 · Cited by 380
Computational Social Science and Sociology
Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C. A. (2020) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621 · Cited by 305
Large-Scale Computerized Text Analysis in Political Science: Opportunities and Challenges
Wilkerson, J., & Casas, A. (2017) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025542 · Cited by 300
Merkley, E., & Stecula, D. A. (2021) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123420000113 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrell, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-11-23
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 92-97
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2179362017
- Cited by
- 603
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 89.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1509433112
- The paper
- Farrell, J. (2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
