The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 12 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Developing the information literacy self‐efficacy scale
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to describe the development of a scale designed to measure self‐efficacy for information literacy. Design/methodology/approach: Cronbach's alpha, item analysis and item discrimination indices, principal component analysis, varimax rotation, and discriminant validity were used to measure reliability and validity of the scale. A 28‐item refined version of the scale was found highly reliable and of reasonable length. Findings: Further refinement based on principal component analysis indicated three major components, which allow approaching information literacy skills regarding to their complexity levels. Originality/value: The information literacy self‐efficacy scale is recommended to identify individuals with low self‐efficacy beliefs, which may be a significantly limiting factor for them to explore their information literacy skills.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper describes the development and validation of the Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale (ILSES) for measuring self-efficacy beliefs related to information literacy. A 28-item version showed high reliability and is recommended for identifying individuals with low information literacy self-efficacy.
Key findings
- The initial 40-item scale had Cronbach’s alpha 0.84; after eliminating 12 items with item validity indices below 0.20, the refined 28-item scale had alpha 0.92, and a further 17-item version had alpha 0.82.
- Principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated three components, labeled basic, intermediate, and advanced information literacy skills; 17 of the 28 items loaded well on these components, while 11 did not.
- The English version showed test-retest reliability of 0.91 for the 28-item scale and 0.81 for the 17-item scale.
- Discriminant validity showed positive correlations among subscales for both the 28-item and 17-item scales, suggesting subscale scores and a total score can be used to assess efficacy.
Methods
- The scale was developed in phases: a literature review produced seven information literacy categories, 40 statements were written, and a seven-point Likert scale was field-tested with 50 teachers, yielding alpha 0.78.
- Participants were 415 randomly chosen teachers; 374 responded (90%), of whom 62% were female and 38% male, ages 20–52 (mean 34.5, SD 2.2), from five private and 14 public schools, with 60.4% teaching primary and 39.6% secondary level.
- Analyses included item analysis and discrimination indices, Cronbach’s alpha, principal component analysis with varimax rotation, discriminant validity, and test-retest reliability; the English version was tested with 47 English Translation and Interpretation students.
Limitations
- The paper states no formal limitations section; it notes that the refined versions omit some items, such as “oral presentation” for the communication category, and does not recommend the 40-item scale.
- Evident from the text: the validation sample is teachers from five private and 14 public schools, and the English version was tested with only 47 translation students, so broader generalizability is not established in the paper.
- Evident from the text: the scale relies on self-report responses, and no behavioral or external criterion validation is reported.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Own result · 10 Own interpretation · 3 Sources not found · 3 No basis given · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, the number of the research regarding self-efficacy for information literacy, are few in number (Akkoyunlu and Kurbanoglu, 2003; Kurbanoglu, 2003; Kurbanoglu and Akkoyunlu, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Akkoyunlu and Kurbanoglu, 2003Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section III (page unavailable) says many studies have examined computer self-efficacy and discusses information-literacy self-efficacy, but it does not say that research on the latter is scarce. Searches for Turkish and English formulations of 'few studies' found no passage establishing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Supportedcites Kurbanoglu, 2003 source
The Self-efficacy section says that literature mentioning self-efficacy in the context of information literacy is 'few in number.' It also says the authors found no research on perceived self-efficacy across all aspects of information literacy. This supports the citing sentence's broad claim that research on the topic was scarce. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Kurbanoglu and Akkoyunlu, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Could not verify
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
“Test-retest of the items in the 28-item and 17-item scales was calculated as 0.91 and 0.81, respectively (see Tables VI and VII).”
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.
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
“Of the 28 construct items, 17 loaded well on three components.”
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.
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 the reliability of the 40-item scale was reasonable (0.84), item analysis to find out about the item validity indicated that there were items in the 40-item scale, which either repeated each other or did not measure well-enough the related category.”
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 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
“total, 11 items did not load well.”
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.
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
“there are missing items in the refined versions of the scale (such as 'oral presentation' for the communication category).”
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 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
“Test-retest of the items in the 28-item and 17-item scales was calculated as 0.91 and 0.81, respectively (see Tables VI and VII).”
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.
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
“The emergence of the positive correlation of the subscales (see Tables IV and V) suggested that both 28-item and 17-item scales could be considered to measure the underlying construct of efficacy”
hedgedcorrelational- 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 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
“After the elimination of 12 items (C10, C14, C15, D17, D18, D19, D20, D22, E27, E28, F31, F38) item validity indices of which are less than 0.20, median of the item validity for the rest of the scale increased to 0.495.”
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 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
“Internal consistency of the 40-item scale as calculated by Cronbach's alpha was quite high (0,84).”
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. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
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
“Thus, through the process of selection based on factor loading the 28-item scale was refined to 17-item, reliability of which is calculated 0.82.”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Further refinement based on principal component analysis indicated three major components, which allow approaching information literacy skills regarding to their complexity levels.”
hedged- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.
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
“Discrimination indices of the 40 items in the scale ranged from 2 0.397 to 0.876.”
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.
The quote only partly states this claim.
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 the reliability of the 40-item scale was reasonable (0.84), item analysis to find out about the item validity indicated that there were items in the 40-item scale, which either repeated each other or did not measure well-enough the related category.”
hedged- 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 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
“The alpha reliability coefficient (0,78) signifying that the scale was reliable.”
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 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
“A 28-item refined version of the scale was found highly reliable and of reasonable length.”
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 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
“The results indicated that 28-item scale, with the highest Cronbach's alpha (0.92 for the Turkish version and 0.91 for the English version) among the three versions, could be considered highly reliable.”
hedged- 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 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
“Principal component analysis extraction along with the Varimax rotation indicated the presence of three components as well as indicating items, Eigenvalue is less than 1.5, which loaded poorly on all factors.”
hedged- 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 conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Undoubtedly, classifying information literacy skills from basic to advanced enables information literacy instructors to address them accordingly in their instruction programs”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Component 3 was labeled as advanced information literacy skills. This component was made up of four items related to synthesizing information and evaluating the information problem solving process and its products.”
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Component 2 was labeled as basic information literacy skills. The five items loaded on this component were related to finding and using information.”
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of an appropriate measure of self-efficacy for information literacy will enable individuals 'at risk' to be identified.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, both the subscale scores and the total score can be used to assess efficacy.”
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 conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is especially worthy that 17-item refined scale, which can be used to determine subjects' self-efficacy levels for information literacy, exhibits high reliability without excessive length.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previously published definitions and standards for information literacy were carefully considered and compared.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Doyle, 1994
- Not matchedcites American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
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
“Low self-efficacy may be a significantly limiting factor for individuals exploring information problem-solving skills vital for lifelong learning.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants included randomly chosen 415 teachers from various branches. The response rate of the participants was 90 percent (374 teachers)”
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 relies on this without support.
Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.
“Three components extracted as a result of the principal component analysis were examined and labeled based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Low self-efficacy beliefs may be a significantly limiting factor for individuals to explore their information literacy skills.
“The use of 28-item scale is highly recommended to identify individuals with low self-efficacy beliefs, which may be a significantly limiting factor for them to explore their information literacy skills.”
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 19,180
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1978) · Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4 · Cited by 10,586
Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1 · Cited by 6,839 · cited 1×
“) and teaching efficacy (see, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001”
BackgroundComputer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249688 · Cited by 6,553
Self-efficacy and educational development
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527692.009 · Cited by 1,002
O’Leary, A. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90172-x · Cited by 802
Reliability and Factorial Validity of Computer Attitude Scales
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164484442033 · Cited by 615
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.2190/jgjr-0kvl-hrf7-gcnv · Cited by 506
Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age
Eisenberg, M. B. (2008) · DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology · doi:10.14429/djlit.28.2.166 · Cited by 504
Self-efficacy and classroom learning
Schunk, D. H. (1985) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/1520-6807(198504)22:2 · Cited by 472
A Reliability Generalization Study of the Teacher Efficacy Scale and Related Instruments
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha‐Haase, T. (2001) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131640121971284 · Cited by 306
Computer Technologies in Teacher Education: The Measurement of Attitudes and Self-Efficacy.
Delcourt, M. A. B., & Kinzie, M. B. (1993) · Journal of research and development in education · Cited by 243
(1994) · Cited by 237
Self‐efficacy: a concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning
Serap Kurbanoglu, S. (2003) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220410310506295 · Cited by 214
Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy: Applications to Oncology
Lev, E. L. (1997) · Research and theory for nursing practice · doi:10.1891/0889-7182.11.1.21 · Cited by 150
Karsten, R., & Roth, R. M. (1998) · Journal of Research on Computing in Education · doi:10.1080/08886504.1998.10782238 · Cited by 149
(2003) · Hacettepe University Institutional Repository (hacettepe.edu.tr) · Cited by 62
Self-citationAn Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Personal Internet Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Scale
Koul, R., & Rubba, P. (1999) · The Electronic Journal of Science Education · Cited by 26
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (2004) in Bundy, A. (Ed.), Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework: Principles, Standards and Practices, 2nd ed., ANZIL, Adelaide.
- Geer, R., White, B. and Barr, A. (1998), The Effect of an Information Literacy Subject on Teacher Education Students Computing Self‐efficacy, available at: www.cegsa.sa.edu.au/conference/acec98/acec98.htm.
- Kurbanoglu, S. and Akkoyunlu, B. (2003), Information Literacy and Teacher Education: A Study Applied in Turkey, poster presented at the 69th IFLA General Conference and Council. Berlin, 1‐9 August.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior
(2016) · Studies in information · doi:10.1108/s2055-53772016 · Cited by 1,537
Workplace literacy skills—how information and digital literacy affect adoption of digital technology
Nikou, S., De Reuver, M., & Mahboob Kanafi, M. (2022) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-12-2021-0241 · Cited by 257
An assessment of the interplay between literacy and digital Technology in Higher Education
Nikou, S., & Aavakare, M. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10451-0 · Cited by 251
Mahmood, K., & University of the Punjab (2016) · Comminfolit · doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.24 · Cited by 212
Deja, M., Rak, D., & Bell, B. (2021) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102403 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Serap Kurbanoglu, S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A.
- Affiliations
- Hacettepe University (TR)
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-11-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 730-743
- ISSN
- 0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2065978945
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 14.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Documentation (publishedVersion)
- Hacettepe University Institutional Repository (hacettepe.edu.tr) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Information Science and Libraries
- Keywords
- information literacy, self-efficacy, scale development, self-efficacy measurement, information literacy skills, psychometric validation, scale refinement
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 2026-11-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
