The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work
Open accessAbstract
This article serves as a summary of The Journal for Specialists in Group Work special issue on the application of Peters and Luke’s (2022) Principles of Anti-Oppression in group work. We provide observations of the ways special issue article authors, as experts in group work practice and research, applied the 10 principles across three types of group work (i.e. task, counseling, and psychoeducational; McCarthy et al., 2022; Ward, 2011) and within varied contemporary group work practice contexts (i.e. school counseling, college settings, online practice, teaching, supervision, research; Goodrich et al., 2023). Further, we identify themes in the ways that contributing authors collectively considered, evaluated, and used the Principles of Anti-Oppression in group work, provide commentary, note gaps, and discuss implications for future development.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article summarizes a special issue applying Peters and Luke’s (2022) 10 Principles of Anti-Oppression to group work across task, counseling, and psychoeducational groups and contexts including school counseling, college, online practice, teaching, supervision, and research. It identifies themes and gaps, noting that Principles 4, 8, 9, and 10 were less frequently or less concretely applied and that measurement and efficacy of the principles remain largely unexamined.
Key findings
- Six authorship teams applied the Principles of Anti-Oppression to task groups in school counseling, counseling support groups for Black women in college, online/telehealth psychoeducational groups, teaching group work, group work supervision, and group work research.
- Half of the authors applied all 10 principles; the other half selected those most germane to their group work type and context. Principles 4, 8, 9, and 10 were less frequently applied or, when applied, generally had less concrete detail and more aspiration, suggesting some principles may present challenges or require additional systemic supports or contextualization.
- All six authorship teams included a positionality statement and discussion of their intra- and inter-personal processes related to radical reflexivity and anti-oppression.
- The principles are described as process-focused, ongoing, progressive, and iterative rather than benchmarks achieved or not; their measurement, efficacy, and influence remain largely unexamined, and future research should explore their independent and collective impact.
Methods
- Design: summary/reflection article synthesizing the special issue on application of Peters and Luke’s (2022) Principles of Anti-Oppression in group work.
- Data: six special issue articles by six authorship teams, covering three group work types (task, counseling, psychoeducational) and varied contexts (school counseling, college settings, online practice, teaching, supervision, research).
- Analysis: the authors provide observations, identify themes in how contributing authors collectively considered, evaluated, and used the principles, note gaps, and discuss implications for future development.
Limitations
- The paper states that the contentious contemporary political climate, evolving legal precedents, and fluid organizational and institutional perspectives may inhibit group workers’ application of the principles; it also notes lack of skill preparation, intra- and inter-personal discomfort, fear of systemic consequences, and role conflicts.
- The paper states that the measurement, efficacy, and influence of the application of the principles remain largely unexamined to date, and future research is needed.
- Evident from the text: this is a summary/commentary of a special issue rather than a primary empirical study, and half of the contributing teams did not apply all 10 principles, with some principles addressed less concretely.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 No full text of the sources · 3 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Sources not found · 1 Own result
In the paper
“In addition, we observed that all six of the authorship teams included a positionality statement and discussion of their intra-and inter-personal processes as related to radical reflexivity (Smith & Luke, 2021) and anti-oppression within the writing of their articles.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith & Luke, 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the majority of authorship teams acknowledged previously identified challenges in implementing anti-oppressive pedagogy and practice (Williams et al., 2021), including how the lack of preparation related to the requisite knowledge, reflectivity, and strategies to implement the principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022;Peters & Luke, 2023) could limit the impact without”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Williams et al., 2021 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many authorship teams identified and explored the impacts of significant -potentially oppressive -structural and systemic tensions beyond the immediate influence of the group workers themselves.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“That said, the measurement, efficacy, and influence of the application of the principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022;Peters & Luke, 2023) remains largely unexamined to date.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“That said, we also recognize that the contentious contemporary political climate, evolving legal precedents, and fluid organizational and institutional perspectives may inhibit group workers' application of these principles (Peters & Luke, 2022).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2022 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In its original form, the authors deliberately did not seek to associate the principles with specific counseling contexts, modalities, theoretical frameworks, models, or stakeholder groups.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2022 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In addition, group workers, as well as counselor educators, supervisors, and researchers are likely to encounter role conflicts as they endeavor to apply the Principles of Anti-Oppression to group work (Peters & Luke, 2022;Peters & Luke, 2023), necessitating additional reflexivity and resources for resolution in an ethical and effective manner (Okech et al., 2023).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Group work, as a microcosm of our society (Guth et al., 2019;Ward, 2011), reproduces and reifies larger societal, cultural, and social system dynamics and functioning (McCarthy et al., 2022;Peters & Luke, 2022).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guth et al., 2019 source
- Not matchedcites Ward, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites McCarthy et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This limitation is further exacerbated by group workers' own lack of skill preparation (Grant et al., 2023;Stickl Haugen et al., 2021), intra-and inter-personal discomfort (Liu & Li, 2023;Wathen & Vargas, 2023), and the fear of systemic consequences (Bauman et al., 2023;Coker et al., 2023).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, we identified group work as the most logical site for the inaugural application of the principles of anti-oppression (Goodrich et al., 2023;Peters & Luke, 2023).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although half of the authors applied all 10 principles of anti-oppression, the other half did not, noting they selected those principles most germane to the type of group work and group work context understudy.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Principles 4, 8, 9, and 10 were less frequently applied or, when they were, generally applied with less concrete detail and more aspiration”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Six authorship teams with expertise in group work practice and research took up the application, with three authorship teams applying the principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022) to specific types of group work within varied counseling practice contexts”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Each of the six authorship teams highlighted the lack of critical, intersectional, and poststructural research exploring all facets of group work grounded in and focused on antioppression, further emphasized by Liu and Li (2023).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Implications and Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liu & Li, 2023 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For example, while all six authorship teams indicated the need for future research related to varied aspects of anti-oppressive group work and the Principles of Anti-Oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022;Peters & Luke, 2023)”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Resulting from post-structural, qualitative Critical Analytic Synthesis (CAS) research, the Principles of Anti-Oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022) aim to empirically identify and define antioppression”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“it appears that some principles may present challenges for group workers to readily implement and/or these principles may require additional systemic supports or contextualization (Liu & Li, 2023).”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liu & Li, 2023 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further, Peters and Luke (2022) contended that the Principles of Anti-Oppression were equally pertinent to the work of counselor educators, supervisors, and researchers.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We, along with the six authorship teams in this special issue, concur that the 10 principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022) are”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Implications and Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2023 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“We agree that the principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022;Peters & Luke, 2023) are processfocused, and that they connote an ongoing, progressive, and iterative development.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite the prevalence of psychoeducational group work across counseling practice contexts and growing attention to online service delivery, Wathen and Vargas (2023) noted disproportionately little scholarship on psychoeducational groups in general and even less related to online psychoeducational group work or that infuses antioppression.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Summary of Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wathen & Vargas, 2023 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Last, several special issue authorship teams noted that the principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022;Peters & Luke, 2023) differ from other counseling competencies or standards that serve as benchmarks that are either achieved or not.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In their article entitled Anti-Oppressive Research in Group Work, Liu and Li (2023) identified the tensions between social justice and anti-oppression as”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Summary of Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liu & Li, 2023 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bauman et al. (2023) made a convincing argument that despite the frequency and utility of task groups in school counseling, these groups are largely underexplored in the literature.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Summary of Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bauman et al., 2023 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“We believe that this reflects the authorship teams' expertise in group work and is consistent with the central importance of group content and process in group work (McCarthy et al., 2022), as well as an active and conscious awareness and engagement with anti-oppressive work.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McCarthy et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Peters and Luke (2022) demonstrated operational clarity across the 10 principles, indicating they are largely independent of one another and that they were not numbered to reflect proposed sequencing or staging.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Themes and Gaps
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters & Luke, 2022 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The six authorship teams contributing to the special issue have expertise in group work practice and research.
“Six authorship teams with expertise in group work practice and research took up the application, with three authorship teams applying the principles of anti-oppression (Peters & Luke, 2022) to specific types of group work within varied counseling practice contexts”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“As such, Wathen and Vargas (2023) specifically examined the application of principles 1, 3, 5, and 9 and suggested future opportunities for the application of the remaining five principles in tandem with Guth et al.'s (2021) Ten Tips for the Facilitation of Virtual Groups.”
§ Reflections on the Application of the Principles of Anti-Oppression in Group Work > Summary of Contributions
Reported 5 · recomputed 6
Citations
Cites
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-7061 · Cited by 404
The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House
(2021) · State University of New York Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/jj.18252118.6 · Cited by 222
Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C. (2008) · Journal of Counseling & Development · doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00522.x · Cited by 189
The Oxford Handbook of Group Counseling
(2011) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195394450.001.0001 · Cited by 69
Williams, J. M., Byrd, J. A., & Washington, A. R. (2021) · Counselor Education and Supervision · doi:10.1002/ceas.12215 · Cited by 53
Framework of anti‐racist school counseling competencies: A Delphi study
Haugen, J. S., Bledsoe, K. G., Burgess, M., & Rutledge, M. L. (2021) · Journal of Counseling & Development · doi:10.1002/jcad.12422 · Cited by 43
Association for Specialists in Group Work Guiding Principles for Group Work
McCarthy, C. J., Bauman, S. A., Choudhuri, D. D., Coker, A. D., Justice, C. A., Kraus, K. L., Luke, M. M., Rubel, D. J., & Shaw, L. R. (2021) · The Journal for Specialists in Group Work · doi:10.1080/01933922.2021.1950882 · Cited by 34
Self-citationDevelopment of the counselor wellness competencies
Gibson, D. M., Wolf, C. P., Kennedy, S. D., Gerlach, J., Degges‐White, S., & Watson, J. C. (2021) · Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy · doi:10.1080/2326716x.2021.1925997 · Cited by 33
Principles of anti‐oppression: A critical analytic synthesis
Peters, H. C., & Luke, M. (2022) · Counselor Education and Supervision · doi:10.1002/ceas.12251 · Cited by 32
Self-citationGuth, L. J., Pollard, B. L., Nitza, A., Puig, A., Chan, C. D., Singh, A. A., & Bailey, H. (2019) · The Journal for Specialists in Group Work · doi:10.1080/01933922.2018.1561778 · Cited by 29
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Luke, M., Peters, H. C., & Goodrich, K. M.
- Affiliations
- Syracuse University (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Corresponding author
- Luke, Melissa
- Venue
- The Journal for Specialists in Group Work
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-04-03
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-192
- ISSN
- 0193-3922 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-6295
- OpenAlex
- W4377031697
- Semantic Scholar
- c98c0a83b85be75eba082cf04c72c0e428f2de58
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal for Specialists in Group Work (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- anti-oppression, group work, task groups, counseling groups, psychoeducational groups, school counseling, online group work, supervision, social justice
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
