Antecedents of researchers’ behavioral intentions to use crowdsourcing in science: a multilevel approach
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Crowdsourcing in science is a collaborative online process through which scientists involve a group of self-selected individuals of varying, diverse knowledge and skills via an open call on the Internet and/or online platforms to undertake a specified research task or set of tasks. It is a response to the call for more inclusive, responsive and transparent research in science. Despite the growing importance of crowdsourcing in science, little is known about which factors influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. This study aims to identify factors that influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science, as well as to develop and test a theoretical multilevel model of researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. We use a sequential mixed method: (1) focus group interviews with 36 researchers from six fields of science, in line with the OECD classification; and (2) partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), using a survey of 552 management researchers to test the model. Managerial and theoretical results show that the antecedents to perceived usefulness and perceived organizational support positively impact the intention to use crowdsourcing in science. Our study offers a new conceptual framework that presents antecedents relevant to scholars’ intention to use crowdsourcing in science. The results bring implications for researchers, managerial staff of institutions of higher education and decision-makers that can encourage researchers of crowdsourcing in science to further develop scientific knowledge in the field.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
When people perceive a co-creation mode as more novel or more useful, they are more likely to initiate and sustain that collaboration.
“When people perceive a co-creation mode as more novel or more useful, they are more likely to initiate and sustain that collaboration (Lenart-Gansiniec et al., 2025; Xie et al., 2023).”
From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Lenart-Gansiniec et al., 2025
The Discussion (page not supplied) reports that researchers who perceive scientific crowdsourcing as useful have a stronger intention to use it, supporting the usefulness-and-initiation part of the claim. The paper does not establish that perceiving the collaboration mode as novel increases that intention, or that either perception helps sustain collaboration; its 5.3 Robustness check instead reports no association between openness to new experiences and intention to use crowdsourcing. The study concerns researchers and scientific crowdsourcing, not co-creation modes or people generally. (LLM, conf=0.89)
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788 · see citing works
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Pls-Sem: indeed a silver bullet
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 · Cited by 21,631 · see citing works
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,266 · see citing works
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287 · see citing works
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690600500107 · Cited by 11,829 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For the purposes of report - ing the results and for illustrating the identified codes (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006), quotes that dominated the transcriptions were selected.”
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996 · see citing works
Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466601164939 · Cited by 9,970 · see citing works
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We measured per - sonality traits (captured in the so-called “Big Five” model) using the scale developed by Gosling et al. (2003).”
Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 · Cited by 7,592 · see citing works
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008 · see citing works
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x · Cited by 2,712 · see citing works
O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12860 · Cited by 2,619 · see citing works
Morgan, D. L. (1996) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 · Cited by 2,353 · see citing works
Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1121066 · Cited by 2,219 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the perspective of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (Par - rick and Chapman 2020), medicine (Bassi et al. 2020), psychology (Buhrmester et al. 2011), sociology (Salganik et al. 2006), political science (Berinsky et al. 2012 ) and information science (Lukyanenko et al. 2020).”
Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 · Cited by 1,852 · see citing works
A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076477 · Cited by 1,486 · see citing works
Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design
Shirk, J., Ballard, H., Wilderman, C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B., Krasny, M., et al. (2012) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-04705-170229 · Cited by 1,317 · see citing works
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 · Cited by 1,260 · see citing works
Crowdsourcing As a Solution to Distant Search
Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0146 · Cited by 1,212 · see citing works
Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E. M. N., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733 · Cited by 1,209 · see citing works
Interviewing for Social Scientists
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. C. (1999) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849209335 · Cited by 1,195 · see citing works
The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. (2011) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0 · Cited by 1,049 · see citing works
Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation
Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4 · Cited by 963 · see citing works
Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis
Boudreau, K. J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322 · Cited by 830 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The basis of crowdsourcing is the wisdom of the crowd (Surowiecki 2004), the ‘parallel path’ effect (Boudreau et al. 2011 ) and the idea of collective intelligence (Toledo and Leon 2019 ), according to which a group of people possess broader knowledge than individuals, even if they are not…”
Handbook of social and clinical psychology: the health perspective
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-6501 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions
Riesch, H., & Potter, C. (2013) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662513497324 · Cited by 451 · see citing works
Crowdsourcing research: Data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
Sheehan, K. B. (2018) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637751.2017.1342043 · Cited by 408 · see citing works
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547007308009 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement
Dudo, A. D., & Besley, J. C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Personality Traits and Participation in Political Processes
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C. N., & Ha, S. E. (2011) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381611000399 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach
Beck, S., Bergenholtz, C., Bogers, M. L. A. M., Brasseur, T.-M., Conradsen, M. L., Marco, D. D., Distel, A. P., Dobusch, L., Dörler, D., Effert, A., et al. (2020) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662716.2020.1792274 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Behavioral antecedents of coopetition: A synthesis and measurement scale
Czakon, W., Klimas, P., & Mariani, M. M. (2019) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2019.03.001 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Self-citationOnline Citizen Science: A Systematic Review of Effects on Learning and Scientific Literacy
Aristeidou, M., & Herodotou, C. (2020) · Citizen Science Theory and Practice · doi:10.5334/cstp.224 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Scientific Utopia III: Crowdsourcing Science
Uhlmann, E. L., Ebersole, C. R., Chartier, C. R., Errington, T. M., Kidwell, M. C., Lai, C. K., McCarthy, R. J., Riegelman, A., Silberzahn, R., & Nosek, B. A. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619850561 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Individual differences in cooperation in a circular public goods game
Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. E. (2001) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.420 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Crowdsourcing in medical research: concepts and applications
Tucker, J. D., Day, S., Tang, W., & Bayus, B. L. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6762 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Koole, S. L., Jager, W., den Berg, A. E. V., Vlek, C. A. J., & HOFSTEE, W. K. B. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167201273003 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation
Aristeidou, M., Eileen Scanlon, A., & Sharples, M. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.044 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Baruch, A., May, A. J., & Yu, D. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.039 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Advances in management research: a bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science
Mas‐Tur, A., Kraus, S., Brandtner, M., et al. (2020) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-020-00406-z · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse
Curty, R. G., Crowston, K., Specht, A., Grant, B. W., & Dalton, E. D. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189288 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Kim, Y., & Adler, M. A. (2015) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.007 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier
Lukyanenko, R., Wiggins, A., & Rosser, H. K. (2019) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09915-z · Cited by 112 · see citing works
The impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS adoption success: An institutional theory perspective
Krell, K., Matook, S., & Rohde, F. H. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.02.006 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Aguinis, H., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2015) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127015594622 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., & Vermicelli, S. (2021) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-021-00482-9 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Personal, Interpersonal, and Political Temperaments
Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716207305621 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Biting the bullet: When self-efficacy mediates the stressful effects of COVID-19 beliefs
Meyer, N., Niemand, T., Dávila, A., & Kraus, S. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263022 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citationFactors influencing the data sharing behavior of researchers in sociology and political science
Zenk-Möltgen, W., Akdeniz, E., Κατσανίδου, Α., Nasshoven, V., & Balaban, E. (2018) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-09-2017-0126 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Yoon, A., & Kim, Y. (2017) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2017.07.008 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Crowdsourcing as a Tool for Research
Law, E., Gajos, K. Z., Wiggins, A., Gray, M. L., & Williams, A. C. (2017) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998197 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Attracting the entrepreneurial potential: A multilevel institutional approach
Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., & Stenholm, P. (2021) · Technological forecasting & social change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120748 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Multilevel research: Foundations and opportunities in management
Molina-Azorín, J. F., Pereira‐Moliner, J., López‐Gamero, M. D., Pertusa‐Ortega, E. M., & Tarı́, J. J. (2020) · BRQ Business Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/2340944420966970 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Data sharing as social dilemma: Influence of the researcher’s personality
Linek, S. B., Fecher, B., Friesike, S., & Hebing, M. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183216 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Llorente, C., Revuelta, G., Carrió, M., et al. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224262 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Using Crowdsourcing to Evaluate Published Scientific Literature: Methods and Example
Brown, A. W., & Allison, D. B. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100647 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Comparing Traditional and Crowdsourcing Methods for Pretesting Survey Questions
Edgar, J., Murphy, J., & Keating, M. (2016) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244016671770 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Mohd Amir, R. I., Mohd, I. H., Saad, S., Abu Seman, S. A., & Tuan Besar, T. B. H. (2020) · Charting a Sustainable Future of ASEAN in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-3859-9_34 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Crowds, citizens, and science: a multi-dimensional framework and agenda for future research
Franzoni, C., Poetz, M. K., & Sauermann, H. (2021) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.1080/13662716.2021.1976627 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04363-0 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
A systematic review of collaborative digital platforms: structuring the domain and research agenda
Wegner, D., da Silveira, A. B., Marconatto, D. A. B., & Mitręga, M. (2023) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-023-00695-0 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Exploring the characteristics of crowdsourcing: An online observational study
Bassi, H., Lee, C. J., Misener, L., & Johnson, A. M. (2019) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551519828626 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Koppman, S., & Leahey, E. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103807 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Understanding crowdsourcing in science
Lenart-Gansiniec, R. A., Czakon, W., Sułkowski, Ł., & Poček, J. (2022) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-022-00602-z · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationPolicy Perspectives on Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing
Shanley, L., Parker, A. J., Schade, S., et al. (2019) · Citizen Science Theory and Practice · doi:10.5334/cstp.293 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
What Crowdsourcing Can Offer to Cross-Cultural Psychological Science
Cuccolo, K., Irgens, M. S., Zlokovich, M. S., Grahe, J. E., & Edlund, J. E. (2020) · Cross-Cultural Research · doi:10.1177/1069397120950628 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Porter, N. D., Verdery, A. M., & Gaddis, S. M. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233154 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
How Can Entrepreneurs Motivate Crowdsourcing Participants?
Smith, D., Manesh, M. M. G., & Alshaikh, A. (2013) · Technology Innovation Management Review · doi:10.22215/timreview/657 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Using Facebook Secret Groups for Qualitative Data Collection
Medley‐Rath, S. (2019) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3963 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Parrick, R., & Chapman, B. (2020) · Forensic Science International Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.05.002 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Seyfried, M., & Reith, F. (2019) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s2056-375220190000005008 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Towards a typology development of crowdsourcing in science
Lenart-Gansiniec, R. A. (2022) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/01655515221118045 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationToledo, L. A., & León, F. H. A. D. (2019) · Innovation & Management Review · doi:10.1108/inmr-06-2018-0040 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Kruse, N. (2024) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-023-00708-y · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Correia, A., Schneider, D., Jameel, S., Paredes, H., & Fonseca, B. (2021) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71187-0_117 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Di Costa F (2019) Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: which strategy pays off? Technovation. 82-83:51-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2018.06.01 · DOI
- Aguinis H, Villamor I, Ramani RS (2021) MTurk research: review and recommendations. J Manag 47:823-837
- Burger JM (2013) Desire for control: personality, social and clinical perspectives. Springer Science & Business Media
- Byrne BM (1995) One application of structural equation modeling from two perspectives: Exploring the EQS and LISREL strategies. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, (pp. 138-157)
- Meyer N (2018) South African female entrepreneurs' intention to remain in business. (Doctoral thesis). Potchefstroom, South Africa, North-West University
- Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook 2:338
- Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, 4th edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA
- Schlagwein D, Daneshgar F (2014) User requirements of a crowdsourcing platform for researchers: Find- ings from a series of focus groups. Proceedings -Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 195, https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/195
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner
Liu, Y., Yang, Y., & Xu, H. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1695532 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lenart-Gansiniec, R., Czakon, W., & Meyer, N.
- Affiliations
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- University of Johannesburg (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Lenart-Gansiniec, Regina
- Venue
- Review of Managerial Science
- Published
- 2024-08-15
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1411-1445
- ISSN
- 1863-6683 (ISSN-L)
- 1863-6691
- OpenAlex
- W4401613303
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Review of Managerial Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Narodowym Centrum Nauki (DEC-2019/35/B/HS4/01446)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Keywords
- behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, perceived organizational support, antecedents of technology adoption, researchers, open science, multilevel models, higher education institutions
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
