CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Complex Network Analysis TechniquesOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial Media and Politics

Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: an annotated review of measures and reduction methods

Open access
Interian, Ruben, G. Marzo, Ruslán, Mendoza, Isela, Ribeiro, Celso C.·2023·International Transactions in Operational Research
DOI 10.1111/itor.13224
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Polarization arises when the underlying network connecting the members of a community or society becomes characterized by highly connected groups with weak intergroup connectivity. The increasing polarization, the strengthening of echo chambers, and the isolation caused by information filters in social networks are increasingly attracting the attention of researchers from different areas of knowledge such as computer science, economics, and social and political sciences. This work presents an annotated review of network polarization measures and models used to handle the polarization. Several approaches for measuring polarization in graphs and networks were identified, including those based on homophily, modularity, random walks, and balance theory. The strategies used for reducing polarization include methods that propose edge or node editions (including insertions or deletions as well as edge weight modifications), changes in social network design, or changes in the recommendation systems embedded in these networks.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/itor.13224

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 92

  1. [3][3] M. S. Alvim, S. Knight, and F. Valencia. Toward a formal model for group polarization in social networks. In The Art of Modelling Computational Systems: A Journey from Logic and Concurrency to Security and Privacy , volume 11760 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 419-441. Springer, Cham, 2019. -
  2. [4][4] A. Antikacioglu and R. Ravi. Post processing recommender systems for diversity. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 707-716, 2017. -
  3. [6][6] H. Arendt. Between Past and Future . Viking Press, New York, 1968. -
  4. [7][7] H. F. Arruda, A. Benatti, F. N. Silva, C. H. Comin, and L. F. Costa. Contrarian effects and echo chamber formation in opinion dynamics. Journal of Physics: Complexity , 2:025010, 2021. doi:10.1088/2632072X/abe561. - · DOI
  5. [8][8] M. Badami, O. Nasraoui, W. Sun, and P. Shafto. Detecting polarization in ratings: An automated pipeline and a preliminary quantification on several benchmark data sets. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data , pages 2682-2690. IEEE, 2017. -
  6. [10][10] S. Balietti, L. Getoor, D. G. Goldstein, and D. J. Watts. Reducing opinion polarization: Effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118(52):e2112552118, 2021. -
  7. [12][12] J. Becker, E. Porter, and D. Centola. The wisdom of partisan crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116:10717-10722, 2019. -
  8. [13][13] A. Benatti, H. F. Arruda, F. N. Silva, C. H. Comin, and L. F. Costa. Opinion diversity and social bubbles in adaptive Sznajd networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , 2020:023407, 2020. -
  9. [14][14] D. Borrelli, L. Iandoli, J. E. Ramirez-Marquez, and C. Lipizzi. A quantitative and contentbased approach for evaluating the impact of counter narratives on affective polarization in online discussions. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems , 2021. Online reference at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9524454, doi:10.1109/TCSS.2021.3094775. - · DOI
  10. [16][16] V. Buskens, R. Corten, and J. Weesie. Consent or conflict: Coevolution of coordination and networks. Journal of Peace Research , 45:205-222, 2008. -
  11. [17][17] D. Cartwright and F. Harary. Structural balance: A generalization of Heider's theory. Psychological Review , 63:277-293, 1956. -
  12. [18][18] A. G. Chartishvili, I. V. Kozitsin, V. L. Goiko, and E. R. Saifulin. On an approach to measure the level of polarization of individuals' opinions. In 2019 Twelfth International Conference Management of Large-Scale System Development , pages 1-5, Moscow, 2019. IEEE. Online reference at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8911015/, doi:10.1109/MLSD.2019.8911015. - · DOI
  13. [19][19] M. F. Chen and M. Z. Racz. An adversarial model of network disruption: Maximizing disagreement and polarization in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , 9:728-739, 2021. -
  14. [20][20] X. Chen, J. Lijffijt, and T. De Bie. Quantifying and minimizing risk of conflict in social networks. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pages 1197-1205. ACM, 2018. -
  15. [21][21] U. Chitra and C. Musco. Analyzing the impact of filter bubbles on social network polarization. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages 115-123. ACM, 2020. -
  16. [22][22] A. G. Chkhartishvili and I. Kozitsin. Binary separation index for echo chamber effect measuring. In 2018 Eleventh International Conference Management of Large-Scale System Development , pages 1-4, Moscow, 2018. IEEE. Online reference at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8551823/, doi:10.1109/MLSD.2018.8551823. - · DOI
  17. [26][26] A. Cossard, G. De Francisci Morales, K. Kalimeri, Y. Mejova, D. Paolotti, and M. Starnini. Falling into the echo chamber: The Italian vaccination debate on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 14th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , pages 130-140. AAAI, 2020. -
  18. [28][28] M. Cremonini and F. Casamassima. Controllability of social networks and the strategic use of random information. Computational Social Networks , 4:10, 2017. doi:10.1186/s40649-017-0046-2. - · DOI
  19. [30][30] Y. Dai, S. Wang, N. N. Xiong, and W. Guo. A survey on knowledge graph embedding: Approaches, applications and benchmarks. Electronics , 9:750, 2020. doi:10.3390/electronics9050750. - · DOI
  20. [32][32] P. De Meo, E. Ferrara, G. Fiumara, and A. Provetti. Generalized Louvain method for community detection in large networks. In 2011 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications , pages 88-93, 2011. -
  21. [33][33] M. H. DeGroot. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 69(345):118121, 1974. -
  22. [34][34] A. Dinkelberg, C. O'Reilly, P. MacCarron, P. J. Maher, and M. Quayle. Multidimensional polarization dynamics in us election data in the long term (2012-2020) and in the 2020 election cycle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 21:284-311, 2021. -
  23. [35][35] T. Donkers and J. Ziegler. The dual echo chamber: Modeling social media polarization for interventional recommending. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages 12-22. ACM, 2021. -
  24. [36][36] S. Du and S. Gregory. The echo chamber effect in Twitter: Does community polarization increase? In H. Cherifi, S. Gaito, W. Quattrociocchi, and A. Sala, editors, Complex Networks & Their Applications V , pages 373-378, Cham, 2017. Springer. -
  25. [38][38] M. El-Moussaoui, T. Agouti, A. Tikniouine, and M. El -Adnani. A comprehensive literature review on community detection: Approaches and applications. Procedia Computer Science , 151:295-302, 2019. -
  26. [39][39] Elsevier. What is the difference between ScienceDirect and Scopus data?, 2018. Online reference at https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a id/28240/supporthub/researchproductsapis/p/15838/, last access on May 22, 2022. -
  27. [40][40] H. Emamgholizadeh, M. Nourizade, M. S. Tajbakhsh, M. Hashminezhad, and F. N. Esfahani. A framework for quantifying controversy of social network debates using attributed networks: biased random walk (BRW). Social Network Analysis and Mining , 10:90, 2020. doi:10.1007/s13278-02000703-1. - · DOI
  28. [45][45] F. Fabbri, Y. Wang, F. Bonchi, C. Castillo, and M. Mathioudakis. Rewiring what-to-watch-next recommendations to reduce radicalization pathways. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 , pages 2719-2728. ACM, 2022. -
  29. [46][46] S. Finn, E. Mustafaraj, and P. T. Metaxas. The co-retweeted network and its applications for measuring the perceived political polarization. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies , pages 276-284, 2014. -
  30. [49][49] N. E. Friedkin and E. C. Johnsen. Social influence and opinions. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology , 15:193-206, 1990. -
  31. [50][50] S. Galam. Minority opinion spreading in random geometry. The European Physical Journal B Condensed Matter and Complex Systems , 25:403-406, 2002. -
  32. [53][53] K. Garimella, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, and M. Mathioudakis. Mary, Mary, quite contrary: Exposing Twitter users to contrarian news. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion , page 201-205, 2017. -
  33. [54][54] K. Garimella, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, and M. Mathioudakis. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages 81-90, 2017. -
  34. [55][55] K. Garimella, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, and M. Mathioudakis. Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference , page 913-922, 2018. -
  35. [57][57] K. Garimella, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, and M. Mathioudakis. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 5249-5253, Stockholm, 2018. -
  36. [58][58] K. Garimella and I. Weber. A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , pages 528-531, 2017. -
  37. [59][59] R. H. Gass. Social influence, sociology of. In J. D. Wright, editor, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , pages 348-354. Elsevier, Oxford, 2nd edition, 2015. -
  38. [60][60] E. Ghezelbash, M. J. Yazdanpanah, and M. Asadpour. Polarization in cooperative networks through optimal placement of informed agents. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 536:120936, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.172. - · DOI
  39. [63][63] Q. Grossetti, C. du Mouza, and N. Travers. Community-based recommendations on Twitter: Avoiding the filter bubble. In R. Cheng, N. Mamoulis, Y. Sun, and X. Huang, editors, Web Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2019 , volume 11881 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 212227. Springer, Cham, 2020. -
  40. [64][64] Q. Grossetti, C. du Mouza, N. Travers, and C. Constantin. Reducing the filter bubble effect on Twitter by considering communities for recommendations. International Journal of Web Information Systems , 17:728-752, 2021. -
  41. [66][66] A. Guyot, A. Gillet, ´ E. Leclercq, and N. Cullot. ERIS: An approach based on community boundaries to assess polarization in online social networks. In R. Guizzardi, J. Ralyt´ e, and X. Franch, editors, Research Challenges in Information Science , pages 88-104. Springer, 2022. -
  42. [67][67] S. Haddadan, C. Menghini, M. Riondato, and E. Upfal. RePBubLik: Reducing polarized bubble radius with link insertions. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages 139-147. ACM, 2021. -
  43. [68][68] W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, and J. Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1025-1035, Red Hook, 2017. Curran Associates Inc. -
  44. [69][69] E. ul Haq, T. Braud, Y. D. Kwon, and P. Hui. Enemy at the gate: Evolution of twitter user's polarization during national crisis. In 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining , pages 212-216, 2020. -
  45. [71][71] F. Heider. Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology , 21:107-112, 1946. -
  46. [72][72] Z. Horne, D. Powell, J. E. Hummel, and K. J. Holyoak. Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112, 2015. -
  47. [73][73] Z. Huang, A. Silva, and A. Singh. Pole: Polarized embedding for signed networks. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , WSDM '22, page 390-400, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. -
  48. [74][74] R. Interian, J. R. Moreno, and C. C. Ribeiro. Reducing network polarization by edge additions. In Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Metaheuristics & Swarm Intelligence , pages 87-92. ACM, 2020. -
  49. [75][75] R. Interian, J. R. Moreno, and C. C. Ribeiro. Polarization reduction by minimum-cardinality edge additions: Complexity and integer programming approaches. International Transactions in Operational Research , 28:1242-1264, 2021. -
  50. [77][77] R. Interian and C. C. Ribeiro. An iterated greedy heuristic for the minimum-cardinality balanced edge addition problem. In Proceeding of the Metaheuristics International Conference 2019 , pages 195-198, Cartagena, 2019. -
  51. [78][78] L. Jasny, A. M. Dewey, A. G. Robertson, W. Yagatich, A. H. Dubin, J. M. Waggle, and D. R. Fisher. Shifting echo chambers in US climate policy networks. PLOS ONE , 13:e0203463, 2018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203463. - · DOI · Paper page
  52. [79][79] Y. Kawada, Y. Nakamura, and K. Sunada. A characterization of the Esteban-Ray polarization measures. Economics Letters , 169:35-37, 2018. -
  53. [80][80] K. Koidl. Towards trust-based decentralized ad-hoc social networks. In Companion Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference 2018 , pages 1545-1551, 2018. -
  54. [81][81] D. Krackhardt and R. N. Stern. Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly , 51:123-140, 1988. -
  55. [82][82] T. B. Ksiazek. A network analytic approach to understanding cross-platform audience behavior. Journal of Media Economics , 24:237-251, 2011. -
  56. [84][84] Y. Lelkes. Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly , 80:392410, 2016. -
  57. [85][85] L. Liu, X. Wang, X. Chen, S. Tang, and Z. Zheng. Modeling confirmation bias and peer pressure in opinion dynamics. Frontiers in Physics , 9:649852, 2021. doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.649852. - · DOI · Paper page
  58. [86][86] J. K. Madsen, R. M. Bailey, and T. D. Pilditch. Large networks of rational agents form persistent echo chambers. Scientific Reports , 8:12391, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25558-7. - · DOI · Paper page
  59. [87][87] Z. Maoz. Network polarization, network interdependence, and international conflict, 1816--2002. Journal of Peace Research , 43:391-411, 2006. -
  60. [88][88] Z. Maoz and Z. Somer-Topcu. Political polarization and cabinet stability in multiparty systems: A social networks analysis of european parliaments, 1945-98. British Journal of Political Science , 40:805833, 2010. -
  61. [89][89] M. Markgraf and M. Schoch. Quantification of echo chambers: A methodological framework considering multi-party systems. In 27th European Conference on Information Systems , 2019. Online reference at https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019 rp/91, last access on May 22, 2022. -
  62. [90][90] F. M. Mendes, R. Poppi, H. Parra, and B. Moreira. EJ: A free software platform for social participation. In F. Bordeleau, A. Sillitti, P. Meirelles, and V. Lenarduzzi, editors, Open Source Systems , volume 556 of IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology , pages 27-37. Springer, Cham, 2019. -
  63. [91][91] M. Mendoza, D. Parra, and A. Soto. GENE: Graph generation conditioned on named entities for polarity and controversy detection in social media. Information Processing and Management , 57:102366, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102366. - · DOI
  64. [93][93] A. J. Morales, J. Borondo, J. C. Losada, and R. M. Benito. Measuring political polarization: Twitter shows the two sides of Venezuela. Chaos , 25:033114, 2015. doi:10.1063/1.4913758. - · DOI
  65. [95][95] P. R. Morales and J.-P. Cointet. Auditing the effect of social network recommendations on polarization in geometrical ideological spaces. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages 627632. ACM, 2021. -
  66. [96][96] C. Musco, C. Musco, and C. E. Tsourakakis. Minimizing polarization and disagreement in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference , pages 369-378. ACM, 2018. -
  67. [98][98] M. E. J. Newman. Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E , 67:026126, 2003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126. - · DOI
  68. [99][99] M. E. J. Newman. Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Physical Review E , 74:036104, 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104. - · DOI
  69. [100][100] M. E. J. Newman. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103:8577-8582, 2006. -
  70. [101][101] M. E. J. Newman and M. Girvan. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E , 69:026113, 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113. - · DOI · Paper page
  71. [104][104] Oxford. Polarization, 2021. Online reference at https://www.lexico.com/definition/polarization, last access on May 22, 2022. -
  72. [105][105] K. Pearson. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 2:559-572, 1901. -
  73. [106][106] M. Y. Pedersen, S. Smets, and T. ˚ Agotnes. Further steps towards a logic of polarization in social networks. In M. Dastani, H. Dong, and L. van der Torre, editors, Logic and Argumentation , volume 12061 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 324-345. Springer, Cham, 2020. -
  74. [107][107] M. Y. Pedersen, S. Smets, and T. ˚ Agotnes. Modal logics and group polarization. Journal of Logic and Computation , 31:2240-2269, 2021. -
  75. [109][109] A. Rumshisky, M. Gronas, P. Potash, M. Dubov, A. Romanov, S. Kulshreshtha, and A. Gribov. Combining network and language indicators for tracking conflict intensity. In G. L. Ciampaglia, A. Mashhadi, and T. Yasseri, editors, Social Informatics , volume 10540 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 391-404. Springer, Cham, 2017. -
  76. [110][110] D. Sacharidis. Diversity and novelty in social-based collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization , pages 139-143. ACM, 2019. -
  77. [112][112] F. P. Santos, F. C. Santos, J. M. Pacheco, and S. A. Levin. Social network interventions to prevent reciprocity-driven polarization. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems , page 1643-1645. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2021. -
  78. [113][113] S. M. Shekatkar. Do zealots increase or decrease the polarization of social networks? Journal of Complex Networks , 8:cnz036, 2019. doi:10.1093/comnet/cnz036. - · DOI
  79. [114][114] Y. Shi, K. Mast, I. Weber, A. Kellum, and M. Macy. Cultural fault lines and political polarization. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Web Science Conference , pages 213-217. ACM, 2017. -
  80. [115][115] J. Shore, J. Baek, and C. Dellarocas. Network structure and patterns of information diversity on twitter. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems , 42:849-872, 2018. -
  81. [117][117] D. Spohr. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review , 34:150-160, 2017. -
  82. [118][118] C. R. Sunstein. Why Societies Need Dissent . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003. -
  83. [119][119] C. R. Sunstein. Republic.com 2.0 . Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2007. -
  84. [123][123] J. H. Tien, M. C. Eisenberg, S. T. Cherng, and M. A. Porter. Online reactions to the 2017 'Unite the right' rally in Charlottesville: Measuring polarization in Twitter networks using media followership. Applied Network Science , 5:10, 2020. doi:10.1007/s41109-019-0223-3. - · DOI
  85. [124][124] J. Turow. Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media World . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997. -
  86. [125][125] M. del Vicario, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, H. E. Stanley, and W. Quattrociocchi. Modeling confirmation bias and polarization. Scientific Reports , 7:40391, 2017. doi:10.1038/srep40391. - · DOI
  87. [127][127] J. G. Webster and T. B. Ksiazek. The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication , 62:39-56, 2012. -
  88. [128][128] S. White and P. Smyth. Algorithms for estimating relative importance in networks. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , page 266-275. ACM, 2003. -
  89. [129][129] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. H¨ ost, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wessl´ en. Systematic Literature Reviews , pages 45-54. Springer, Berlin, 2012. -
  90. [130][130] M. Wolfowicz, D. Weisburd, and Hasisi B. Examining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 2021. doi:10.1007/s11292021-09471-0. - · DOI
  91. [131][131] Z. Xiong and T. ˚ Agotnes. On the logic of balance in social networks. Journal of Logic, Language and Information , 29:53-75, 2020. -
  92. [132][132] Z. Yang, R. Algesheimer, and C. J. Tessone. A comparative analysis of community detection algorithms on artificial networks. Scientific Reports , 6:30750, 2016. doi:10.1038/srep30750. - · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Interian, R., G. Marzo, R., Mendoza, I., & Ribeiro, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Computing Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói RJ 24210‐346 Brazil
  • Universidade Federal Fluminense (BR)
ORCID
Venue
International Transactions in Operational Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-10-21
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
3122-3158
ISSN
  • 0969-6016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3995
DOI
10.1111/itor.13224
OpenAlex
W4307169212
Cited by
67
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • International Transactions in Operational Research (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (E‐26/204.200/2021, E‐26/200.330/2020, E‐26/200.926/2021)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (001)
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (143289/2021‐7, 309869/2020‐0)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
filter bubbles, echo chambers, polarization measures, homophily, modularity, random walks, balance theory, social networks, social network design, recommender systems

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