CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Crime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and PenologyCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

Focused deterrence strategies effects on crime: A systematic review

Open access
Braga, Anthony A., Weisburd, David, Turchan, Brandon·2019·Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World
DOI 10.1002/cl2.1051PMC PMC8356499
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Focused deterrence is associated with moderate reductions in crime 1.1.1| The review in brief A relatively small number of people, often involved in gangs and criminally-active groups, are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime.Focused deterrence strategies attempt to reduce offending behavior for specific types of crime.Our review suggests that these strategies are associated with moderate overall reductions in crime.Crime is not displaced to other areas, rather it is more likely that there is a diffusion of crime control benefits to adjacent areas and socially-connected groups of offenders. | What is this review about?Crime is highly concentrated amongst a small number of highly-active offenders.Focused deterrence strategies combine law enforcement, community mobilization, and social services in an attempt to reduce offending behavior for specific crime types.A key feature of this crime control strategy involves the direct communications of the consequences of continued criminal offending and the availability of social services to targeted subjects.This review examines whether focused deterrence reduces crime and considers how observed crime reduction effects may vary by the different types of focused deterrence strategies and program evaluation designs.What is the aim of this review?This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of focused deterrence on crime.The review summarizes and analyzes results from 24 quasi-experimental evaluations of focused deterrence interventions, including 12 programs targeting criminally active gangs or groups, nine programs targeting open-air drug markets, and three programs targeting high-risk individual offenders.All but one of the studies are from the United States.1.3 | What studies are included?A total of 24 studies of focused deterrence interventions were identified.All studies were published from 2001 to 2015.Twentythree studies were conducted in the United States and one in Scotland.None of the identified studies used a randomized controlled trial design.

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 · 10.1002/cl2.1051

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Few community-based gun violence programs explicitly aim to also address the traumas of structural violence that contribute to gun crime, including dehumanizing policing, extreme poverty, and institutional racism.

    “Yet, few of these approaches explicitly aim to also address the traumas of structural violence that contribute to gun crime, including dehumanizing policing, extreme poverty, and institutional racism.”

    From A healing-centered approach to preventing urban gun violence: The Advance Peace Model (2021) · cites this paper as Braga et al., 2019

    The Background section ('How the intervention might work'; page not provided) describes focused deterrence as targeting offender behavior through enforcement, community action, and social services. It also describes community members challenging explanations that invoke racism and poverty. This supports a narrower point about the aims of the approaches reviewed, but the paper does not establish that few community-based gun violence programs address structural-violence trauma or assess the listed harms as contributors to gun crime. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Community-based approaches that use credible, street-level outreach workers to interrupt conflicts, mentor the small number of offenders in each community, and offer them alternatives to violent conflict resolution have demonstrated success in reducing firearm homicides.

    “Community-based approaches that use credible, street-level outreach workers to interrupt conflicts, mentor the small number of offenders in each community, and offer them alternatives to violent conflict resolution, have demonstrated success in reducing firearm homicides.”

    From A healing-centered approach to preventing urban gun violence: The Advance Peace Model (2021) · cites this paper as Braga et al., 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Elements of POP often also underlie the focused deterrence approach, which has been found effective and could perhaps be enhanced with more in-depth problem solving in future programs rather than largely replicating the existing "pulling levers" model.

    “Elements of POP often also underlie the focused deterrence approach, which has been found effective and could perhaps be enhanced with more in‐depth problem solving in future programs rather than largely replicating the existing “pulling levers” model (Braga, Weisburd, et al., 2019).”

    From Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Braga, Weisburd, et al., 2019

  • Braga, Weisburd, et al. (2019) found larger effect sizes for POP approaches at hot spots than approaches which simply increased police presence/activity at target areas.

    “Braga, Weisburd, et al. (2019) found larger effect sizes for POP approaches at hot spots than approaches which simply increased police presence/activity at target areas.”

    From Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Braga, Weisburd, et al., 2019

    The Results (Synthesis of results; page unavailable) compare effect sizes among types of focused-deterrence programs, not between problem-oriented policing at hot spots and increased police presence. The Background (The intervention; page unavailable) describes focused deterrence as often problem-oriented, but does not make the claimed comparison. Searches for POP, hot spots, and increased police presence found no passage establishing it. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The POP approach has been shown to be effective when combined with hot spots policing.

    “In particularly, the POP approach has been shown to be effective when combined with hot spots policing.”

    From Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Braga, Weisburd, et al., 2019

    The Background (‘The intervention’; page unavailable) says focused deterrence strategies are often framed as problem-oriented exercises, and the Authors’ Conclusions (‘Implications for practice and policy’; page unavailable) find those strategies effective. Neither passage evaluates problem-oriented policing (POP) combined with hot spots policing. A search for ‘hot spots policing’ found it only in a reference title, not as a finding about that combination. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 83

  1. Boyle, D. J., Lanterman, J. L., Pascarella, J. E., & Cheng, C. C. (2010). The impact of Newark's operation ceasefire on trauma center gunshot wound admissions. Justice Research and Policy, 12(2), 105– 123.
  2. Braga, A. A. (2008b). Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(4), 332– 343.
  3. Braga, A. A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2014). Deterring gang‐involved gun violence: Measuring the impact of Boston's operation ceasefire on street gang behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 113– 139.
  4. Braga, A. A., Pierce, G. L., McDevitt, J., Bond, B. J., & Cronin, S. (2008). The strategic prevention of gun violence among gang‐involved offenders. Justice Quarterly, 25(1), 132– 162.
  5. Corsaro, N., & Brunson, R. K. (2013). Are suppression and deterrence mechanisms Enough? Examining the “pulling levers” drug market intervention strategy in Peoria, Illinois, USA. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24(2), 115– 121. 23352584
  6. Corsaro, N., Brunson, R. K., & McGarrell, E. F. (2009). Problem‐oriented policing and open‐air drug markets: Examining the rockford pulling levers deterrence strategy. Crime & Delinquency, 59(7), 1085– 1107.
  7. Corsaro, N., & Engel, R. S. (2015). Most challenging of contexts: Assessing the impact of focused deterrence on serious violence in New Orleans. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 471– 505.
  8. Corsaro, N., Hunt, E. D., Hipple, N. K., & McGarrell, E. F. (2012). The impact of drug market pulling levers policing on neighborhood violence: An evaluation of the high point drug market intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 167– 199.
  9. Farrington, D. P. (2006). Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti‐crime programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 329– 337.
  10. McGarrell, E. F., Chermak, S., Wilson, J. M., & Corsaro, N. (2006). Reducing homicide through a “lever‐pulling” strategy. Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 214– 231.
  11. Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago's group violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 525– 558.
  12. Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: Evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 223– 272.
  13. Saunders, J., Kilmer, B., & Ober, A. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation of a drug market intervention training cohort. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  14. Williams, D. J., Currie, D., Linden, W., & Donnelly, P. D. (2014). Addressing gang‐related violence in Glasgow: A preliminary pragmatic quasi‐experimental evaluation of the community initiative to reduce violence (CIRV). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(6), 686– 691.
  15. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, James (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.
  16. Apel, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). General deterrence: A review of recent evidence. In J. Q. Wilson, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 411– 436). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  17. Braga, A. A. (2008a). Problem‐oriented policing and crime prevention (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  18. Braga, A. A. (2012). Getting deterrence right?: Evaluation evidence and complementary crime control mechanisms. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 201– 210.
  19. Braga, A. A., Apel, R., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The spillover effects of focused deterrence on gang violence. Evaluation Review, 37(3–4), 314– 342. 24569771
  20. Braga, A. A., & Kennedy, D. M. (2012). Linking situational crime prevention and focused deterrence strategies. In N. Tilley, & G. Farrell (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honour of Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 65– 79). London: Taylor and Francis.
  21. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2011). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323– 358.
  22. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2014). Must we settle for less rigorous evaluations in large area‐based crime prevention programs? Lessons from a Campbell review of focused deterrence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 573– 597.
  23. Braga, A. A., & Winship, C. (2006). Partnership, accountability, and innovation: Clarifying Boston's experience with pulling levers. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 171– 188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Brunson, R. K. (2015). Focused deterrence and improved police‐community relations: Unpacking the proverbial “black box”. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 507– 514.
  25. Campbell, D. T., & Boruch, R. F. (1975). Making the case for randomized assignment to treatment by considering the alternatives. In C. A. Bennett, & A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experiments: Some critical issues in assessing social programs (pp. 195– 296). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  26. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  27. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Aiming for evidence‐based gun policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(3), 691– 735.
  29. Cook, P. J., Ludwig, J., Venkatesh, S., & Braga, A. A. (2007). Underground gun markets. The Economic Journal, 117(524), F588– F618.
  30. Corsaro, N. (2013). The high point drug market intervention: Examining impact across target areas and offense types. Victims & Offenders, 8(4), 416– 445.
  31. Corsaro, N., & McGarrell, E. F. (2009). Testing a promising homicide reduction strategy: Re‐assessing the impact of the Indianapolis “pulling levers” intervention. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(1), 63– 82.
  32. Dalton, E. (2002). Targeted crime reduction efforts in ten communities: Lessons for the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative. U.S. Attorney's Bulletin, 50, 16– 25.
  33. Deuchar, R. (2013). Policing youth violence: Transatlantic connections. London: IEP Press.
  34. Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13– 54.
  35. Duval, S. J. (2005). The trim and fill method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127– 144). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  36. Eck, J. (2002). Preventing crime at places. In Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.), Evidence‐based crime prevention (pp. 241– 294). New York, NY: Routledge.
  37. Fagan, J. (2002). Policing guns and youth violence. The Future of Children, 12(2), 132– 151. 12194607
  38. Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2002). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence‐based crime prevention (pp. 13– 21). New York, NY: Routledge.
  39. Farrington, D. P., & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 35– 49.
  40. Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Lösel, F. (2016). Developmental and social prevention. In D. Weisburd, D. P. Farrington, & C. Gill (Eds.), What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 15– 75). New York, NY: Springer.
  41. Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York, NY: Elsevier.
  42. Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., Descormiers, K., Wong, J. S., & Morselli, C. (2013). Keeping promises: A systematic review and a new classification of gang control strategies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 228– 242.
  43. Hamilton, B., Rosenfeld, R., & Levin, A. (2018). Opting out of treatment: Self‐selection bias in a randomized controlled study of a focused deterrence notification meeting. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(1), 1– 17.
  44. Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta‐analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 167– 178. 7870860
  45. Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Risk perceptions among serious offenders: The role of crime and punishment. Criminology, 30(4), 575– 594.
  46. Kennedy, D. M. (2009). Drugs, race, and common ground: Reflections on the high point intervention. National Institute of Justice Journal, 262, 12– 17.
  47. Kennedy, D. M. (2006). Old wine in new bottles: Policing and the lessons of pulling levers. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 155– 170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Kennedy, D. M. (2008). Deterrence and crime prevention: Reconsidering the prospect of sanction. London, UK: Routledge Press.
  49. Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Don't shoot: One man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner‐city America. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
  50. Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., & Braga, A. A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use‐reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 147– 196.
  51. Koper, C. S., Woods, D. J., & Kubu, B. E. (2013). Gun violence prevention practices among local police in the United States. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36(3), 577– 603.
  52. Lipsey, M. W. (2000). Statistical conclusion validity for intervention research: A significant (p<.05) problem. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation: Donald Campbell's legacy (Vol. 1, pp. 101– 120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  53. Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta‐analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69– 81.
  54. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta‐analysis, Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  55. Lösel, F., & Köferl, P. (1989). Evaluation research on correctional treatment in West Germany: A meta‐analysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system (pp. 334– 355). New York, NY: Springer.
  56. Ludwig, J. (2005). Better gun enforcement, less crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(4), 677– 716.
  57. Ludwig, J., Kling, J. R., & Mullainathan, S. (2011). Mechanism experiments and policy evaluations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 17– 38.
  58. MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (1998). What works in corrections? Report to the State of Washington Joint Audit and Review Committee, College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
  59. Mazerolle, L., Soole, D. W., & Rombouts, S. (2007). Street level drug law enforcement: A meta‐analytic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3, 1– 47.
  60. National Research Council (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence committee to review research on police policy and practices. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  61. National Research Council (2005). Firearms and violence: A critical review, Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  62. Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 173– 217.
  63. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31(1), 163– 204.
  64. Perry, A. E., & Johnson, M. (2008). Applying the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) to studies of mental health provision for juvenile offenders: A research note. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(2), 165– 185.
  65. Perry, A. E., Weisburd, D., & Hewitt, C. (2010). Are criminologists describing randomized controlled trials in ways that allow us to assess them? Findings from a sample of crime and justice trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(3), 245– 262.
  66. Petrosino, A., Campie, P., Pace, J., Fronius, T., Guckenburg, S., Wiatrowski, M., & Rivera, L. (2015). Cross‐sector, multi‐agency interventions to address urban youth firearms violence: A rapid evidence assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 22(1), 87– 96.
  67. Piehl, A. M., Cooper, S. J., Braga, A. A., & Kennedy, D. M. (2003). Testing for structural breaks in the evaluation of programs. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(3), 550– 558.
  68. Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., & Baumer, E. (2005). Did Ceasefire. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(3), 419– 449.
  69. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231– 244). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
  70. Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta‐analytic results. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(1), 61– 81.
  71. Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). The grey literature. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook on research synthesis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Sage Publications. (103‐126).
  72. Sampson, R. J. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918– 924. 9252316
  73. Saunders, J., Lundberg, R., Braga, A. A., Ridgeway, G., & Miles, J. (2015). A synthetic control approach to evaluating place‐based crime interventions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 413– 434.
  74. Saunders, J., Ober, A. J., Kilmer, B., & Greathouse, S. M. (2016). A community‐based, focused‐deterrence approach to closing overt drug markets: A process and fidelity evaluation of seven sites appendix G. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  75. Sherman, L. W. (2002). Fair and effective policing. In J. Q. Wilson, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 383– 412). Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
  76. Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15(4), 331– 357.
  77. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84– 99.
  78. Visher, C., & Weisburd, D. (1998). Identifying what works: Recent trends in crime. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 28(3–4), 223– 242.
  79. Wallace, D., Papachristos, A.V., Meares, T., & Fagan, J. (2016). Desistance and legitimacy: The impact of offender notification meetings on recidivism among high risk offenders. Justice Quarterly, 33(7), 1– 28.
  80. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42– 65.
  81. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50– 70.
  82. Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2011). Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(1), 87– 94. 21392957
  83. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
Braga, Anthony A.
ORCID
Venue
Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-09
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
e1051-e1051
ISSN
1891-1803 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/cl2.1051
PMC
PMC8356499
OpenAlex
W2972699353
Cited by
92
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Campbell Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
focused deterrence, crime reduction, gang intervention, high-risk offenders, community mobilization, social services, law enforcement, crime displacement

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