CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 253Philosophy and History of ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy

Open access
Clarke, Brendan, Gillies, Donald, Illari, Phyllis, Russo, Federica, Williamson, Jon·2014·Topoi
DOI 10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 · 10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9

Cites

84 of 84 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?

  • Russo and Williamson (2007) and Clarke et al. (2014) have revived arguments from Bradford Hill (1965) and Mackie (1974) to show how to identify causally non-redundant characteristics by combining two kinds of evidence.

    “Russo and Williamson (2007) and Clarke et al. (2014) have revived the arguments of Bradford Hill (1965) and Mackie (1974) to show how this can be done.”

    From Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: a critical review (2021) · cites this paper as Clarke et al. (2014)

    Section 2.2 says that establishing a causal claim in medicine normally requires evidence of correlation and of an underlying mechanism. The discussion of medical methodology connects Bradford Hill’s criteria to that balance. Our copy does not show Clarke et al. drawing on Mackie (1974) or explaining how to identify causally non-redundant characteristics; §2.2 also distinguishes evidence of two sorts of things from two different kinds of evidence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In variance-based approaches, the methodological gold standard is an actual experiment, or RCT, which if properly designed enables strong causal inferences about the mean causal effect of a given treatment variable within the studied sample.

    “In variance-based approaches, the methodological gold standard is an actual experiment (randomized controlled trial, or RCT), which if properly designed, enables strong causal inferences about the mean causal effect of a given treatment variable within the studied sample (Gerring, 2011; Clarke et al, 2014).”

    From Multi-Method Research in the Social Sciences: A Review of Recent Frameworks and a Way Forward (2020) · cites this paper as Clarke et al, 2014

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Evidence of a causal correlation between a professional development intervention and pupil outcomes shows that the intervention as a whole is effective.

    “Evidence of (causal) correlation between a PD intervention and pupil outcomes provides evidence that an intervention as a whole is effective.”

    From Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: a critical review (2021) · cites this paper as Clarke et al., 2014

  • Clarke et al. (2014) argue that evidence of correlation and evidence of mechanism combine in a special way that is more than the sum of their parts.

    “Clarke et al. (2014, p. 19) argue that these two types of evidence”

    From Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: a critical review (2021) · cites this paper as Clarke et al. (2014)

  • Masking means that a given cause might be linked to the same outcome through multiple mechanisms that can have different effects on the outcome.

    “The second key challenge is the problem of 'masking' (Steel, 2008: 68; Clarke et al 2014). Masking means that a given cause might be linked to the same outcome through multiple mechanisms that can have different effects on the outcome.”

    From Multi-Method Research in the Social Sciences: A Review of Recent Frameworks and a Way Forward (2020) · cites this paper as Clarke et al 2014

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

2 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bell, G. (2008). Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution, (2nd Edition). OUP.
  2. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the Brain. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  3. Debré, P. (1994). Louis Pasteur. The John Hopkins University Press. English transla- tion by Elborg Forster, 1998.
  4. Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. (1988). Social mechanism: An analytical approach to Social Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Howick, J. (2011). Exposing the vanities-and a qualified defence-of mechanistic evidence in clinical decision-making. Philosophy of Science, 78(5):926-940. Pro- ceedings of the Biennial PSA 2010.
  6. Lucas, R. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation. In Brunner, K. and Meltzer, A., edi- tors, The Phillips curve and labor markets, volume 1 of Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, pages 161-168. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
  7. MRC (1949). Treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis with para-aminosalicylic acid and streptomycin: Preliminary report. British Medical Journal, 31 December:1521.
  8. MRC (1950). Treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis with streptomycin and para- amino-salicylic acid. British Medical Journal, 11 November:1073-1085.
  9. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011). The Oxford 2011 levels of ev- idence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, http://www.cebm.net/ index.aspx?o=5653.
  10. Rothman, K., Greenland, S., and Lash, T. (2008). Modern epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Illari, Phyllis
ORCID
Venue
Topoi
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-12-03
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
339-360
ISSN
  • 0167-7411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8749
DOI
10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9
OpenAlex
W1965394391
Cited by
253
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
70.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Topoi (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Cambridge
  • University of Oxford
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Vlaamse regering
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/J011185/1)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
evidence hierarchy, evidence-based medicine, causal claims, causal inference

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