CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 446Misinformation and Its ImpactsVaccine Coverage and HesitancyMedia Influence and Health

Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories

Open access
Jolley, Daniel, Douglas, Karen M.·2017·Journal of Applied Social Psychology
DOI 10.1111/jasp.12453
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The current research tested if explicit anti‐conspiracy arguments could be an effective method of addressing the potentially harmful effects of anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories. In two studies, participants were presented with anti‐conspiracy arguments either before, or after reading arguments in favor of popular conspiracy theories concerning vaccination. In both studies, anti‐conspiracy arguments increased intentions to vaccinate a fictional child but only when presented prior to conspiracy theories. This effect was mediated by belief in anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories and the perception that vaccines are dangerous. These findings suggest that people can be inoculated against the potentially harmful effects of anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories, but that once they are established, the conspiracy theories may be difficult to correct.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Two experiments show that anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reduce intentions to vaccinate a fictional child, but anti-conspiracy arguments can improve intentions only when presented before the conspiracy theories. Once conspiracy theories are established, anti-conspiracy information is less effective.

Key findings

  • In Study 1 (final N = 260), vaccination intentions differed across conditions, F(4, 255) = 5.00, p = .001, η² = .07; intentions were lower in the conspiracy condition than in the anti-conspiracy (p < .001) and control (p < .001) conditions, while anti-conspiracy and control did not differ (p = .718).
  • Anti-conspiracy arguments presented before conspiracy arguments improved vaccination intentions compared with conspiracy-only in Study 1 (p = .047) and Study 2 (p = .003), but not when presented after conspiracy arguments (Study 1 p = .263; Study 2 p = .164).
  • Serial mediation showed that conspiracy exposure increased belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which increased perceived vaccine danger, which reduced vaccination intentions; the inoculation effect was mediated by reduced conspiracy belief and then reduced perceived danger.
  • Study 2 (final N = 175) replicated the pattern: vaccination intentions differed across conditions, F(2, 172) = 4.64, p = .011, η² = .05; conspiracy belief was lower when anti-conspiracy arguments came first (p = .001) but not when they came after (p = .100).

Methods

  • Two between-subjects experiments with U.S. residents recruited online: Study 1 used MTurk (267 recruited; final N = 260 after attention checks) with five conditions (conspiracy, anti-conspiracy, anti-conspiracy/conspiracy, conspiracy/anti-conspiracy, control); Study 2 used Prolific Academic (180 recruited; final N = 175) with three conditions (conspiracy, anti-conspiracy/conspiracy, conspiracy/anti-conspiracy).
  • Participants read conspiracy and/or anti-conspiracy articles about vaccination, then completed measures of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs (11 items), perceived vaccine dangers (8 items), and intention to vaccinate a fictional 8-month-old child, Sophie, against a fictitious disease, dysomeria.
  • Analyses used ANOVAs and Hayes PROCESS Model 6 serial mediation with 5,000 bootstrapped resamples and 95% confidence intervals.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the intervention was tested only with anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, so it cannot conclude that all conspiracy theories are resistant to correction; anti-vaccine theories may be more persuasive or emotionally laden than others.
  • The paper states that mediators were not manipulated, the outcome was intention to vaccinate a fictional child rather than actual behavior, arguments were presented one after another rather than with realistic time gaps, and prior vaccination knowledge or prior conspiracy beliefs were not assessed.
  • Evident from the text: the samples were online U.S. convenience samples, and the vaccination decision concerned a fictitious disease and child, which may limit generalizability to real-world vaccination behavior.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jasp.12453

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The effect of anti-conspiracy arguments on vaccination intentions was mediated by belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and the perception that vaccines are dangerous.

    “This effect was mediated by belief in antivaccine conspiracy theories and the perception that vaccines are dangerous.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, the perception that vaccines are dangerous was lower in the anti-conspiracy condition than in the control condition.

    “The perception that vaccines are dangerous was also lower in the anti-conspiracy than the control condition (p = .031).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, vaccination intentions did not differ between the anti-conspiracy condition and the control condition.

    “Intentions were no different between the anti-conspiracy condition and control (p = .718).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, conspiracy belief was significantly lower in the anti-conspiracy condition than in the control condition.

    “Moreover, conspiracy belief was significantly lower in the anti-conspiracy than the control condition (p = .017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reduced vaccination intentions, an effect mediated by anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and perceptions that vaccines are dangerous.

    “In summary, exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reduced vaccination intentions, an effect mediated by anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and perceptions that vaccines are dangerous.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In both studies, anti-conspiracy arguments increased intentions to vaccinate a fictional child but only when presented prior to conspiracy theories.

    “In both studies, anti-conspiracy arguments increased intentions to vaccinate a fictional child but only when presented prior to conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, conspiracy arguments increased belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which increased perceived dangers of vaccines, which reduced intentions to vaccinate a fictional child (serial mediation).

    “Conspiracy arguments increased belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which directly increased belief in the perceived dangers of vaccines, and subsequently reduced intentions to vaccinate a fictional child.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, when anti-conspiracy arguments were presented before conspiracy theories, vaccination intentions improved relative to the conspiracy condition, and this effect was mediated by anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and the perception that vaccines are dangerous.

    “When anti-conspiracy arguments were presented before conspiracy theories, vaccination intentions improved relative to the conspiracy condition, and this effect was mediated by anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and the perception that vaccines are dangerous.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories increased belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, leading to an increase in the perception that vaccines are dangerous, which consequently reduced participants' intentions to vaccinate a fictional child.

    “We extended this finding by testing a serial mediation model, and found that exposure to conspiracy theories increased belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories leading to an increase in the perception that vaccines are dangerous, which consequently reduced participants' intentions to vaccinate a fictional child.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Exposure to anti-conspiracy arguments followed by conspiracy arguments (vs conspiracy arguments alone) reduced belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which reduced perceptions that vaccines are dangerous, subsequently improving behavioral intentions.

    “Exposure to anti-conspiracy arguments, then conspiracy arguments (in comparison to conspiracy arguments alone) reduced belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which then reduced perceptions that vaccines are dangerous, subsequently improving behavioral intentions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    People can be inoculated against the potentially harmful effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, but once they are established, the conspiracy theories may be difficult to correct.

    “These findings suggest that people can be inoculated against the potentially harmful effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, but that once they are established, the conspiracy theories may be difficult to correct.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories

    Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reflect suspicion and mistrust of scientific research, and can be used as an avenue to counteract evidence that vaccines are effective, safe and necessary.

    “Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reflect suspicion and mistrust of scientific research, and can be used as an avenue to counteract evidence that vaccines are effective, safe and necessary (Kata, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kata, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The term 'conspiracy theory' was not mentioned in either the conspiracy or anti-conspiracy articles.

    “Following previous research, the term 'conspiracy theory' was not mentioned in either of the articles (Douglas & Sutton, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Douglas & Sutton, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories

    Issuing public anti-conspiracy arguments about specific conspiracy theories can arm people against the potential dangers of misinformation.

    “One practical suggestion is to issue public anticonspiracy arguments about specific conspiracy theories in order to arm people against the potential dangers of misinformation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sunstein and Vermeule (2009)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to one of the five experimental conditions in Study 1.

    “Next, they were randomly assigned to one of the five experimental conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories

    Conspiracy theories are controversial and interesting by nature.

    “Conspiracy theories are controversial and interesting by nature. They posit novel, often elaborate and unconventional explanations for events.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results of Study 2 replicate the results of Study 1 and provide further support for H3.

    “This replicates the results in Study 1 and provides further support for H3.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The effect of anti-conspiracy arguments before conspiracy theories on reducing conspiracy belief, reducing dangerous perceptions, and improving vaccination intentions was replicated in Study 1 and Study 2.

    “In summary, as in Study 1, exposure to anti-conspiracy arguments before conspiracy theories reduced conspiracy belief, leading to a reduction in the belief that vaccines are dangerous, and improving vaccination intentions (H3 and H4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Providing anti-conspiracy arguments before conspiracy arguments may inoculate people from the potential harm of conspiracy theories, offering a means of defense and making them more resistant to persuasion.

    “We suggest that by presenting anti-conspiracy information first, this may in some way inoculate people from the potential harm of conspiracy theories.”
    • Also stated in: § General discussion · hedged
      “In our current investigation, we argue that providing anti-conspiracy arguments before conspiracy arguments offers people some kind of means of defense, making them more resistant to persuasion by conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Many conspiracy theories may emerge too quickly after an event to prevent pre-exposure to them, making inoculation almost impossible.

    “As mentioned previously, many conspiracy theories may emerge too quickly after an event to prevent pre-exposure to them, making inoculation almost impossible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    For those who have already taken on board the conspiracy theories, merely providing factual information on vaccines may be less effective and stronger interventions may be required.

    “For those who have already taken on board the conspiracy theories however, merely providing factual information on vaccines may be less effective and stronger interventions may be required.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Providing more contextual details may make the anti-conspiracy arguments more interesting than just supplying the facts that refute the conspiracy argument.

    “Providing more contextual details may make the anti-conspiracy arguments more interesting than just supplying the facts that refute the conspiracy argument.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For other types of conspiracy theories (e.g., when a celebrity dies or there is a major world disaster), it may not be possible to present anti-conspiracy arguments prior to conspiracy theories.

    “For other types of conspiracy theories (e.g., when a celebrity dies or there is a major world disaster), it may therefore not be possible to present anti-conspiracy arguments prior to conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Interventions that target anti-vaccine attitudes and behavior may contain strategies or techniques that reduce conspiracy belief.

    “These interventions, although not directly targeted at conspiracy belief, may nevertheless contain strategies or techniques that reduce conspiracy belief.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    An anti-conspiracy argument that clearly argues against the conspiracy theory may be more successful in attenuating the influence of conspiracy theories than just presenting anti-conspiracy information.

    “It is therefore reasonable to suggest that an anti-conspiracy argument that clearly argues against the conspiracy theory (as opposed to just presenting the anti-conspiracy information) may be more successful in attenuating the influence of conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Being given a forewarning may induce a temporary state of skepticism and prompt the recipient to become more vigilant, and they may therefore be more likely to suppress misinformation.

    “In other words, being given a forewarning may induce a temporary state of skepticism and prompt the recipient to become more vigilant, and they may therefore be more likely to suppress misinformation (Eakin et al., 2003;Lewandowsky et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eakin et al., 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lewandowsky et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The intervention tested in the current research was based on anti-vaccine conspiracy theories only, so it is not possible to conclude that all conspiracy theories may be resistant to correction.

    “For example, the intervention tested in the current research was based on antivaccine conspiracy theories only and it is therefore not possible to conclude that all conspiracy theories may be resistant to correction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Counter-arguments in some cases need to not only provide original opposing arguments, but also need to explicitly argue against each of the points included in the misinformation.

    “Previous research has shown for example that in some cases counter-arguments not only need to provide original opposing arguments, but also need to explicitly argue against each of the points included in the misinformation (Gass & Seiter, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gass & Seiter, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The conspiracy theory statements used in the present study discussed childhood vaccinations, which could be more emotionally laden than other conspiracy theories.

    “Indeed, the conspiracy theory statements used in the present study discussed childhood vaccinations, which could be more emotionally laden than other conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories may be more persuasive than other types of conspiracy theories.

    “It is also reasonable to propose that anti-vaccine conspiracy theories may be more persuasive than other types of conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The intervention of presenting anti-conspiracy arguments prior to conspiracy theories is more practical in the case of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.

    “However, this intervention is more practical in the case of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: People may not come across anti-vaccine conspiracy theories very much until they have children.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    People are more likely to seek information about vaccines via the Internet than through their doctor.

    “For example, people are more likely to seek information about vaccines via the Internet than through their doctor (Downs, Bruine de Bruin, & Fischhoff, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Downs, Bruine de Bruin, & Fischhoff, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Anti-conspiracy arguments concerning the NASA moon landing accompanied by photographs reduced conspiracy beliefs below baseline.

    “Previous research has shown that anticonspiracy arguments concerning the NASA moon landing accompanied by photographs reduced conspiracy beliefs below baseline (Swami, et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swami, et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The outcome measure used in the current investigation was based on intentions to vaccinate a fictional child.

    “Another factor to note is that the outcome measure used in the current investigation were based on intentions to vaccinate a fictional child.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The mediators in the current investigation were not manipulated, so a third variable may have affected both the mediators and the outcome.

    “Further, the mediators in the current investigation were not manipulated, and therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that a third variable may have affected both the mediators and the outcome.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Conspiracy theories may stop people from engaging with important aspects of society, such as voting, engaging with their work, and vaccinating their children.

    “Conspiracy theories may not only stop people from engaging with important aspects of society, such as voting, engaging with their work, and vaccinating their children (Douglas & Leite, in press;Jolley & Douglas, 2014a, 2014b), but their effects may be difficult to alleviate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Douglas & Leite, in press

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jolley & Douglas, 2014a

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jolley & Douglas, 2014b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants' prior knowledge concerning vaccination, and belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, were not assessed in either of the current studies.

    “Moreover, participants' prior knowledge concerning vaccination, and belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, were not assessed in either of the current studies (with perhaps the exception of the control group in Study 1 to some degree).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In the current investigation, arguments were presented one after the other, which is not necessarily reflective of how people receive information in everyday life.

    “Moreover, in the current investigation arguments were presented one after the other which is not necessarily reflective of how people receive information in everyday life.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Techniques such as presenting anti-conspiracy arguments with photographs may be particularly applicable in developing education videos that aim to increase vaccine uptake.

    “Techniques such as this may be particularly applicable in developing education videos that aim to increase vaccine uptake.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effects of anti-conspiracy arguments on vaccination intentions observed in the MTurk and Prolific samples generalize to the general population.

    “These findings suggest that people can be inoculated against the potentially harmful effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, but that once they are established, the conspiracy theories may be difficult to correct.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People may not come across anti-vaccine conspiracy theories very much until they have children.

    “For example, people may not come across anti-vaccine conspiracy theories very much until they have children.”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(4, 255) = 5reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(4, 255) = 5.00, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(4, 255) = 9.46reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(4, 255) = 9.46, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(4, 255) = 8.32reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(4, 255) = 8.32, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 172) = 4.64reported p = .011 · recomputed p = .011

    “F(2, 172) = 4.64, p = .011”

  • ConsistentF(2, 172) = 6.29reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(2, 172) = 6.29, p = .002”

5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Study 2 reports more women after excluding participants

    Minor

    The final sample is reported to contain 95 women, although the original sample contained only 94. Excluding five participants cannot increase that count.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Allen M., 1993, Prospects and precautions in the use of meta‐analysis, 101
  2. Allen M., 1998, Persuasion: Meta‐analysis, 87
  3. Coady D., 2006, Conspiracy theories: The philosophical debate
  4. Hayes A., 2013, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach (methodology in the social sciences)
  5. Rosnow R., 1967, Experiments in persuasion

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Staffordshire (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Jolley, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-28
Volume
47
Issue
8
Pages
459-469
ISSN
  • 0021-9029 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-1816
DOI
10.1111/jasp.12453
OpenAlex
W2608099398
Semantic Scholar
e8156012a12a38a08070c1a2260dd51e376bf882
Cited by
446
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
70.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
inoculation, vaccination intention, conspiracy beliefs

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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