Mean answer scores in the large group rose continually across the interaction phases, especially from phase 4 onward, but stagnated on question 3¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? G1's mean answer score rose continually during the session, with notable increases from phase 4 on questions 1 and 2 and in question 4 in phase 5, while question 3 rose only slightly and stagnated in phase 7. → Tatiana Íñiguez-Berrozpe 2025

Evidence¶

Tatiana Íñiguez-Berrozpe 2025¶

Tatiana Íñiguez-Berrozpe, Carmen Elboj-Saso, Francesco Marcaletti, Pablo Bautista-Alcaine. (2025). Learning to deal with hate speech: An online collective intelligence experiment on the Collective Learning platform. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09460-9

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive analysis of mean scores across seven interaction phases for G1 (n = 123), reported in Results (Table 1, Fig. 3), using each participant's last response per phase. Means are descriptive only; no standardised effect size is printed.

"In group G1, the large group, the mean answer score continually rose during the session. Score increase was particularly notable from phase 4 onward on questions 1 and 2, and in question 4 in phase 5."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The large online group showed significant score improvements from phase onward on question 1 while the smaller groups did not, indicating collective intelligence capacity emerged in the large group — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Omnibus tests found significant group, phase and group-by-phase effects on questions 1 and 2, and predominantly group effects on questions 3 and 4
• The small groups did not improve on questions 1 and 4, G2 declined on questions 2 and 3, and G3 improved only on question 2 — related