You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Ranking algorithms play a crucial role in online platforms ranging from search engines to recommender systems. In this paper, we identify a surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings: the fewer the items reporting a given signal, the higher the share of the overall traffic they collectively attract. This few-get-richer effect emerges in settings where there are few distinct classes of items (e.g., left-leaning news sources versus right-leaning news sources), and items are ranked based on their popularity. We demonstrate analytically that the few-get-richer effect emerges when people tend to click on top-ranked items and have heterogeneous preferences for the classes of items. Using simulations, we analyze how the strength of the effect changes with assumptions about the setting and human behavior. We also test our predictions experimentally in an online experiment with human participants. Our findings have important implications to understand the spread of misinformation.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Search engines like Google are essential to navigating the Web’s endless supply of news, political information, and citizen discourse. The mechanisms and conditions under which search results are selected should therefore be of considerable interest to media scholars, political theorists, and citizens alike. In this chapter, I adopt a “deliberative” ideal for search engines and examine whether Google exhibits the “same old” media biases of mainstreaming, hypercommercialism, and industry consolidation. In the end, serious objections to Google are raised: Google may favor popularity over richness; it provides advertising that competes directly with “editorial” content; it so overwhelmingly dominates the industry that users seldom get a second opinion, and this is unlikely to change. Ultimately, however, the results of this analysis may speak less about Google than about contradictions in the deliberative ideal and the so-called “inherently democratic” nature of the Web.
[1] "Google may favor popularity over richness; it provides advertising that competes directly with "editorial" content; it so overwhelmingly dominates the industry that users seldom get a second opinion, and this is unlikely to change. "