The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 57 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Win Together or Lose Alone: Circular Economy and Hybrid Governance for Natural Resource Commons
Open accessAbstract
Natural resource commons are rivalrous non-excludable goods subject to the well-known market failure of overexploitation (also known as the tragedy of the commons) due to coordination failure, short-termism and free riding. We investigate how innovation in circular economy and (multistakeholder) network contracts can contribute to addressing the problem. More specifically, circular economy innovation can improve the efficiency of investment in regeneration of the natural resources, while network contracts can create a legal framework preventing coordination failures and increasing the effectiveness of individual willingness to act cooperatively. The model addresses and discusses governance issues arising in network contracts and the need to implement them from a multistakeholder perspective considering heterogeneity in the target quality of natural resources across stakeholders.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that circular economy innovation plus hybrid governance—network contracts and multistakeholder monitoring—can address natural resource commons problems such as overexploitation, short-termism, and free riding. Its model shows that cooperation can preserve the common good and sustain income/employment, while excess competition can make unilateral regeneration economically unsustainable.
Key findings
- Circular economy innovation improves the efficiency of investment in regenerating natural resources, while network contracts create a legal framework that prevents coordination failures and increases the effectiveness of individual willingness to cooperate.
- In the model, starting from perfect quali-quantity (Q = 1), non-cooperation is the dominant strategy in scenario A; this degrades Q over time, raises production and restoration costs, reduces employment and income, and can trigger exit from the market.
- Under perfect competition, a player who cooperates while the other free-rides may have no sales (pq = 0), making cooperation economically unsustainable: “you win together or lose alone.”
- Higher circular economy regeneration efficiency (E) reduces regeneration costs, improves cooperative payoffs, and can allow regeneration even without cooperation if revenues are not too low; the paper also cites COMIECO/CONAI enabling Italy to reach an 87.3% paper and cardboard recycling rate by 2020, surpassing the EU’s 85% target for 2035.
Methods
- Theoretical model of profit-maximizing entrepreneurs who use labor and the “quali-quantity” (Q) of a natural resource common as production inputs; Q is modeled as a Verhulst logistic function, with waste-pollution reducing Q unless regeneration expenses are incurred.
- Game-theoretic payoff matrix with two identical entrepreneurs choosing cooperative regeneration (cR = R*/2) or free riding (cR = 0), analyzed under three cost-parametric scenarios (A, B, C) and their competitive versions.
- Long-term dynamics are illustrated in Figs. 1–2 under restrictive assumptions, including E ≪ 1, R0 = 0, one-shot noncooperative games, indivisible production/labor, and constant prices, waste-pollution, and efficiency; no empirical dataset or estimation is used.
Limitations
- The paper states that its model is a simplified version of reality with several restrictive assumptions; time dynamics, free riding management, monopolistic drift, circular economy management strategies, transaction costs, competition reduction, international competition, and repeated games can be further developed.
- The paper states that transaction costs and competition reduction are discussed but not formalized, and that international competition and protective measures require further discussion.
- Evident from the text: the analysis is analytical/illustrative rather than empirically estimated, and the figures rely on stylized assumptions and are not calibrated to observed data.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
72 Own interpretation · 42 No basis given · 18 Not checked yet · 7 No full text of the sources · 2 Sources not found · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Check pending · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The latter, in particular, are the main carriers of opportunity costs that work against networks in general (Cafaggi, 2011; Dubey, 2024; Pastore et al., 2020; Williamson, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Cafaggi, 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed text is a Russian-language article on external economic partnerships; its References section lists Cafaggi’s book, but no passage from the book appears. Searches for transaction costs, opportunity costs, and costs working against networks found no passage addressing the claim, so the attribution cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not matchedcites Dubey, 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pastore et al., 2020
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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
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
“When we introduce competition in scenario B the non-cooperative choice becomes dominant, due to competition and the absence of rev enues (pq = 0) in the case of a cooperative choice against a noncooperative choice of the other player.”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the competitive version, if an entrepreneur has higher costs than the other, and this applies only to the case of different choices, then they have no returns due to competition.
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
“Our benchmark model reproduces a typical tragedy of the common.”
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.
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
“If even one player does not coop erate and chooses cR = 0, since there is production by (2) in the next period Q decreases and thus the production (c) and regeneration costs ( R * ( Q , E ) 2 ) increase.”
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.
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
“Inspecting the payoffs of a single player is sufficient (since they are identical) to conclude that not cooperating and thus not regenerating the common good is the dominant strategy ( cRX = 0, cRY = 0).”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In scenario A, if both invest in regeneration costs remain constant; if only one invests costs increase in period 2; if no one invests production costs increase even more but less than R*/2.
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
“Based on this assumption we can briefly show a typical coordination failure result in a game involving the simultaneous choice of two iden tical entrepreneurs (easily extendable to a higher number of players/ producers) between two strategies: i) investing in regeneration, each paying half ( cR = R * 2 ), or ii) not investing ( cR = 0).”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Because these are common goods and players can enter and exit, it is impossible to establish trust between players or expectations about the other, making the games non cooperative and one-shot.
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
“the result is standard, such that the price equals the marginal cost of labor.”
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.
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
“Market failure can be also induced in the model by strong competi tion that drives the price so low that it makes investing to restore the quality of the common good (and compensating for negative external ities) economically unsustainable.”
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.
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
“We also show that the opportunity of investing in circular economy, by improving preservation and regeneration technologies that can in crease the value of the natural resource, raises gains from cooperation.”
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.
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
“Another insight of the model is that excess competition among local producers can bring down prices to a point where resources for investment in regeneration are insufficient.”
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. 58
- Probably not a substantial claim. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
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
“Please note that in the case of perfect competition, the scenario of type B would lead to non-cooperation, so both players would choose the exit option at time 3, and production would cease, leaving the common good deteriorate.”
hedgeddirect- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“When this happens, profit maximization occurs for a marginal return equal to the marginal cost, which means choosing a lower quantity and thus lower employ ment and higher profits.”
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.
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
“Whenever the production costs are/became higher than the cost of regeneration, there is no dominant strategy, and the two Nash equilibria are always of the non-cooperative type ( cRX = 0, cRY = R*), ( cRX = R*, cRY = 0).”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In scenario B, C2/C1 > R*/2 > C1/C.
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
“If the players do not quit the market and proceed to play, they face scenario B at time 3.”
plaindirect- 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.
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
“Consequently, the dynamics of the quali-quantity of the natural resource common in the model is such that, period by period, production and restoration costs increase, reducing employment and income.”
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.
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
“Local producers can tackle the problem by costly investing in the regeneration of the natural resource, but they are subject to a typical coordination failure problem.”
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.
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
“Starting from a common good with perfect quali-quantity (Q = 1), players do not cooperate, contributing to degrade Q over time, increasing production costs, and thus reducing incomes and employment.”
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.
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
“Please note that, in case of perfect competition, the type-B scenario would lead not to cooperate such that, in case of low revenues, pro ducers would choose the exit option at time two, and in case of middle or higher revenues, they would anyway gain less profits compared to the choice of cooperating since the beginning.”
hedgeddirect- 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 authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“It is easy to observe that, in the model, such a penalty, P, will be effective if P > C 1 C R * 2 ∧ P > C 2 C 1 R * 2 .”
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.
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
“Consequently, firms will not regenerate and the costs would in crease leading to scenario C or they may return to scenario A.”
hedgeddirect- 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.
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
“It should be noted that the cooperative option maintained over time leads to a better result in the long term if ∑ pq R*/2 C is greater than the other strategies, a condition that depends on how much regeneration and non-regeneration costs increase as quality decreases.”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Investing in regeneration is the dominant strategy in this scenario, which is reached only if it is possible to profit even with very high costs and thus cannot apply in most cases.”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In scenario C, C2/C1 > C1/C > R*/2.
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
“A higher efficiency of regeneration (E), caused by higher social and technological capacities in circular economy techniques and technolo gies, reduces the regeneration cost and improves the cooperative”
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.
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
“At time 1, players face a scenario of type B. If both cooperate, their production costs go back to time zero level. If only one cooperates, their production costs fall to the level indicated by the red arrow. If neither cooperates, and revenues are low, they will both fail, otherwise, the production cost will increase.”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“Therefore, if profits are still positive despite enormous costs, then the good will be restored, otherwise, the exit condition will be triggered, and it will be abandoned in its degraded state.”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“If in the previous repeated scenario, both players chose not to cooperate and revenues are not low, they switch to scenario C at time 3. The dominant strategy is to cooperate, hence their production costs will return to the level at time zero.”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Corporate marginal production costs are inversely related to the qualiquantity of the natural resource common good which is subject to depletion in proportion to the level of output of any single player in the area.”
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.
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
“At time 1 producers face a type-A scenario. In case of low revenues, the producer decides for the exit option; otherwise, the dominant strategy is (nn), and accordingly, the production costs will increase in the following periods.”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“When we introduce competition in scenario A, the price is that of the non-cooperative choice, which being lower than the cooperative choice, renders the payoff of the latter negative and therefore not selectable given the exit condition.”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the competitive version, if an entrepreneur has higher costs than the other, and this applies only to the case of different choices, then they have no returns due to competition.
- The authors state this as an assumption: If there is a dominant strategy, systematically lower cost and higher profit, then competition results in zero profit, making the alternative necessarily negative in profit and thus not selectable due to the exit condition.
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
“The increase in costs over time is such that either companies no longer meet their budget constraints and exit the market (exit condition) or the costs, which grow more than proportionally, lead to scenario B”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“We start by emphasizing how the degradation of the natural resource common due to market failure, coordination failure, and free riding can lead to a decrease in the income and employment generated by local economic activities.”
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.
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
“The natural resource progressively depletes making pro ductive activity not feasible anymore in the future.”
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.
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
“Their investment taken per se has small and negligible effects while coordinated regeneration action of all players could solve the issue.”
hedgeddirect- 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
“while network contracts can create a legal framework preventing coordination failures and increasing the effectiveness of individual willingness to act cooperatively”
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. 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
“The aim is to reduce the acceleration of entropy, i.e., the amount of matter and energy that becomes unusable for processes that generate output.”
plaindirect- 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.
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
“Pursuing the circularity of the common good in the view of our model also means maintaining its quality; therefore, avoiding pollution in a broad sense, as it is the useable quantity that matters as input.”
plaindirect- 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The most important aspect of network contracts is that they aim to maintain or generate competitive advantages and thus pertain more strictly to the traditional economic sphere (Cafaggi, 2011; Pastore et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cafaggi, 2011 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not matchedcites Pastore et al., 2020
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: 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.
- Not checked yet
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
“Biodigesters are examples of how addressing SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) -by generating clean, renewable energy from biomass, contributing to sustainable energy production, SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by transforming agricultural waste into energy in compliance with circular economy practices, directly supporting Target 12.5, which focuses on reducing waste generation”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This mode of energy production has several advantages. It enables the production of clean energy while preserving air, soil, and water, characterizes the territory, stabilizes electricity costs, transforms waste into value, and allows for profit from the surplus produced if the generated energy exceeds demand (Ioannou et al., 2018; Jesus et al., 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ioannou et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites Jesus et al., 2021 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The first is, when possible, to distribute well-defined and exclusive property rights so that the owner ' s interest coincides with that of the portion of the common good assigned to her/him (Coase, 1960).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Coase, 1960 source
hedgeddirect- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is pursued by attempting to create a closed and reversible cycle, where the minimum possible input is acquired and transformed so that the recycled output can be reused as input in other processes (Bova, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bova, 2022 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
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.
- Not checked yet
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
“However, when it depends on natural common goods, it must do so harmoniously with local wellbeing, cultural identity, and environmental sustainability needs that can create a divergence between quality targets among stakeholders on the natural resource common.”
plainconditional- 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. 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
“In summary, the network contract acts as a catalyst for change, promoting collaboration and synergy among various actors to achieve primarily competitive advantage goals.”
plaindirect- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“To provide an example the quality of a river for the enjoyment of local communities and tourists that contribute to the local economy can be higher than the minimum quality required for industry and agriculture use.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Circular economy is a key strategy for sustainable development that can be applied to natural resources including soil, air, and water, and related activities from agriculture to services (Duncan and Pascucci, 2016; Hamam et al., 2021; Morseletto et al., 2022; Pomoni et al., 2024).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duncan and Pascucci, 2016
- Not checked yetcites Hamam et al., 2021 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked yetcites Morseletto et al., 2022 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
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.
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
“These institutions manage transaction costs, uncertainty, coordination, and other relevant aspects in the formation and exchange of property rights, as well as the manner and efficiency with which production and consumption incentives are mobilized (Huylenbroeck et al., 2009; Menard, 1995; North, 1990).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This allocation can be efficient if transaction costs are low and there is perfect information, thus it is not always feasible or convenient ( ´ Sleszy ´ nski, 2024).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Śleszyński, 2024 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plainconditional- 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.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“The relevance of circular economy in addressing problems of natural resource commons is because the former allows for maintaining the value generated, or that can be generated, by natural resources by creating a closed cycle in which non-raw (reused, recycled) material inputs are maximized, increasing natural efficiency and maintaining the quality of ecosystem services, while non-reusable or”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pomoni et al., 2024 source
plaindirect- 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. 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
“An obvious drawback of this choice is that it would reduce welfare by preventing universal access.”
hedgeddirect- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, price stability and possible local co-ownership, especially if the cost is competitive, promote the emergence of energy-intensive activities and generally contribute to maintaining employment, generating income, regional development, and energy security (Gold and Seuring, 2011; G ´ omez et al., 2017; Kaundinya et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The above-mentioned institutions can work on various natural resource commons and deal with issues concerning agriculture in nature reserves, forests, parks, and the success of related circular economy practices (van Berkum and Dengerink, 2019; Boger, 2001; Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Morseletto et al., 2022; Pomoni et al., 2024; Williamson, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Berkum and Dengerink, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not matchedcites Boger, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites Jurgilevich et al., 2016 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
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
“Strengthening the role of institutions that manage natural resource commons is a progress toward several SDGs such as SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)”
plaindirect- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no 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
“An example of hybrid organizations using network contracts and monitoring to foster circular economy through collaboration, which is particularly relevant to our aims, is the partnership between COMIECO and CONAI in Italy.”
plaindirectSingle case- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“Hence, very high circular economy efficiency in regeneration can allow players to maintain the natural common good over time if reve nues are not too low. However, cooperating from the beginning provides higher profits.”
plainconditional- 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.
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
“An example of successful government intervention in this direction is the creation of the COMIECO consortium for recycled paper discussed in section 2.3.”
plaindirectSingle case- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“These costs act as a sort of 'cooperative entrance barrier ' , potentially preventing the birth of network contracts and multistakeholder agencies and the relative benefit in terms of quality of the common good, employment, and revenues.”
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.
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 network contracts should contain clauses imposing regeneration investment on each member, thereby avoiding coordina tion failure.”
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, entrepreneurs who focus on the short term do not concern themselves with quali-quantity of the natural resource common and generate a negative externality, namely waste-pollution (qr), without bearing the costs (R).”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the short term, investing in R has null impact on the common good because regeneration investment has effects in the subsequent period.
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
“These costs grow as the number of agents involved - that were not already cooperating - grow and decline as social capital and relational skills increase.”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“If the impact is negligible, the entrepreneur has no control over the future value of Q and maximizes profit period by period without investing in R and maintaining the activity as long as it remains profitable”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
In the paper
“This collaboration enabled Italy to achieve an 87.3% paper and cardboard recycling rate by 2020, surpassing the EU ' s 85% target set for 2035 (Comieco, 2023), demonstrating the effectiveness of hybrid governance in aligning economic and environmental objectives.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Comieco, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirectSingle case- 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.
- Not matched
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, on the one hand, spontaneously internalizing the externalities leads to failure, and on the other hand, not doing so also leads to failure.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Network agreements are fundamental since, without a change in in centives, in games of common goods, non-cooperative behaviors would empirically prevail, leading to the natural selection of, or adaptation into, non-cooperative agents (Burton-Chellew et al., 2015; Perc et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- 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
“Agents can formulate expectations on counterpart behavior, and thus trust or distrust.”
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. 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 concurs to switch faster to the second and third scenarios and, accordingly, it improves the chances of regeneration even without cooperation and the willingness to be cooperative regardless of the other decision.”
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 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
“This occurs if the entrepreneurs are coor dinated, and the coordinated system significantly impacts and prevents free riding.”
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.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“Furthermore, if the reduction in competition is due to the presence of few entities or only one, the assumption that the impact on qualiquantity is negligible also no longer holds, and consequently, to maxi mize intertemporal profits, the entrepreneur can invest in R.”
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 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
“When competition decreases, the assumption that an entrepreneur or a group of entrepreneurs cannot determine the price (price-taker) and that profits are zero (perfect competition) no longer holds, and the marginal return can be higher than p (dp/dq < 0).”
plaindirect- 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.
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
“Degradation and costs increase, and continuing the economic activity may no longer be worthwhile, leading to its cessation and leaving the common good degraded, without generating income or employment.”
hedgeddirect- 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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
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
“Therefore, the effect is twofold: on the one hand, consumer surplus decreases due to higher prices and lower quantity supplied; on the other hand, lower production reduces the impact of waste-pollution.”
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 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
“Another component of the paradox is that, on one hand, perfect competition increases consumer surplus and employment in the short term, leading to company failure in the long term, while on the other hand, reducing competition means reducing consumer surplus and employment, although, as discussed, this leads to the reduction of wastepollution and the internalization of costs.”
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 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
“Assigning property to a single company is not the only way to avoid coordination failure. Hybrid forms of governance such as network contracts can achieve the same result.”
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 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
“Therefore, not investing in qualiquantity progressively leads to an increase in marginal production costs and a reduction in employment and income in the medium and long term.”
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 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 necessary that the players ' choices are observed and that a penalty is imposed -through contract or law -that makes the payoff of the non-cooperative choice worse.”
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 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
“If this is not true, we would have a shift towards the third solution where restoration is convenient even for individuals, which we exclude because it means that the problem, in fact, does not exist.”
hedgeddirect- 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.
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
“This combination would safeguard income, employment, and benefits for the well-being of the locals and the ecosystem.”
hedgeddirect- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Situations with incomplete contracts, where not all contingencies can be regulated, can occur.
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
“To address this scenario, a joint use of network contracts and a multistakeholder hybrid organization responsible for monitoring the contract, including citizens and the government, is possible.”
hedgedconditional- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Situations with incomplete contracts, where not all contingencies can be regulated, can occur.
In the paper
“Furthermore, depending on supply and demand elasticity and estimation capability, one or the other may be more convenient (Weitzman, 1974).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weitzman, 1974 source
hedgedconditional- 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.
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
“Finally, such government policies are not reactive and adaptive but tend to be rigid, with potential loss of effec tiveness and efficiency over time compared to solutions that directly involve the agents in the field.”
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.
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
“The circular economy practices we discussed in the literature review are key regeneration tools requiring collective investment (e.g., com munity biodigesters) or can be implemented individually, such as the reduction of unsustainable pesticides.”
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.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“Taxes can internalize social costs, pay double dividends, and continuously incen tivize pollution reduction.”
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.
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
“The second can prevent excessive reduction of competitive pressure, monitor, and coordinate activities on the common good to maintain high qualiquantity, thereby ensuring well-being and environmental quality.”
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Situations with incomplete contracts, where not all contingencies can be regulated, can occur.
In the paper
“As is well known, Elinor Ostrom (1990, 2008) demonstrates how communities can successfully manage common-pool resources (CPRs) without relying on top-down regulation by the state or privatization, even in situations with incomplete con tracts where not all contingencies can be regulated.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ostrom (1990, 2008)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Situations with incomplete contracts, where not all contingencies can be regulated, can occur.
- Not matched
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 latter can define contract goals in a multistakeholder perspective monitor the re sults of the network contract and prevent competition from being excessively reduced, leading to oligopolies or monopolies that would negatively impact consumer surplus and employment.”
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By network agreements, we mean networking alliances as a non-legally enforceable set of proposed tasks and strategies undersigned by the counterparts that indicate modes of cooperation and make cooperation feasible and more likely, thereby helping to make the cooperative equilibrium an achievable focal point.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Becchetti et al., 2023 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
hedgeddirect- 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.
- Not checked yet
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
“An adequately structured network entity can fall into this category if it becomes the owner or co-owner of a significant part of the common good.”
plainconditional- 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: fails — The paper may give no 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. 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
“Conversely, reducing competition to allow margins for investment in restoring the common good could lead to the emergence of oligopolies or monopolies, reducing consumer surplus and employment.”
hedgeddirect- 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
“Through the first, it is possible to select participants, monitor and assign re sponsibilities, and simultaneously reduce competitive pressure to enable the internalization of externalities and investment capacity.”
hedgeddirect- 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Situations with incomplete contracts, where not all contingencies can be regulated, can occur.
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
“These tools sometimes require coordination, in other cases monitoring, and thus fit well within a network contract or a hybrid organization designed for this purpose.”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The main conditions that make the tragedy of the commons happen are open access (non-excludability) to the rivalrous common good, lack of information, negative externalities, and the absence of well-defined and exclusive property rights.
“The main conditions that make this ' tragedy ' happen are open access (non-excludability) to the rivalrous common good, lack of information, negative externalities, and the absence of well-defined and exclusive property rights.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the process of production, entrepreneurs generate waste-pollution that reduces the quali-quantity unless they incur regeneration expenses.
“In the process of production, they generate waste-pollution that reduces the quali-quantity unless they incur regeneration expenses.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The entrepreneur is a profit maximizer (π), having labor (L) and the common good of sufficient quali-quantity (Q) as production factors, with the latter being freely accessible.
“We model the choice of the entrepreneur, assumed to be a profit maximizer ( π ), and having labor (L) and the common good of sufficient quali-quantity (Q) as production factors, with the latter being freely accessible.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The market is perfectly competitive where entrepreneurs are price-takers, meaning the price (p) is constant and the impact of the quantity supplied (q) by a single entrepreneur is negligible (dp/dq ≈ 0).
“Initially, we assume a market with perfect competition where entrepreneurs are price-takers, meaning the price (p) is constant and the impact of the quantity supplied (q) by a single entrepreneur is negligible (dp/dq ≈ 0).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The full regeneration cost R* is zero if the quali-quantity is already maximum, increases as the quali-quantity decreases, and decreases as the circular economy regeneration efficiency E increases.
“Let us label the full regeneration cost R*. The full regeneration cost is zero if the quali-quantity is already maximum (i.e., there is no need for regeneration), increases as the quali-quantity decreases, and decreases as the circular economy regeneration efficiency E increases.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The factors impacting on Q, namely (R0 + ∑Ri(cRi, E), ∑qi ri), are taken as given when the i-th entrepreneur makes her choice about cRi.
“Additionally, we will assume that the factors impacting on Q, namely ( R 0 + ∑ Ri cRi , E ) ∑ qi r i ) , which will vary to formulate different scenarios, are taken as given when the i-th entrepreneur makes her choice about cRi .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
p, r, E, and R0 are positive and constant over time.
“Finally, for simplicity and without lack of generality, we assume, unless specifically indicated otherwise, that p, r, E, and R0 are positive and constant over time.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the short term, investing in R has null impact on the common good because regeneration investment has effects in the subsequent period.
“In the short term, the impact of investing in the quali-quantity of the common good (R) is null, as the regeneration investment has effects in the subsequent period.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.
“Each entrepreneur has an exit option and, being a profit maximizer, ceases activity when it generates losses.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No natural regeneration mechanisms are at work (R0 = 0).
“No natural regeneration mechanisms are at work (R0 = 0) to emphasize the importance of cooperation in preventing the deteri oration of the natural common good.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The amount of output produced by a single producer (q) is chosen along with R and thus is the same for all strategy combinations.
“The amount of output produced by a single producer (q) is chosen along with R and thus is the same for all strategy combinations.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Because these are common goods and players can enter and exit, it is impossible to establish trust between players or expectations about the other, making the games non cooperative and one-shot.
“Because these are common goods and players can enter and exit, it is impossible to establish trust between players or expectations about the other, making the games non cooperative and one-shot.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In scenario A, if both invest in regeneration costs remain constant; if only one invests costs increase in period 2; if no one invests production costs increase even more but less than R*/2.
“Given cost function characteristics in (3) we can conveniently as sume, without lack of generality that: i) if both invest in regeneration ( R * 2 ), costs remain constant over time (C); ii) if only one invests in regeneration, costs (C1) increase in period 2 (C1 > C); iii) if no one invests, production costs (C2) increase even more (C1 < C2) but, in any case, by definition, less than R * 2”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In scenario B, C2/C1 > R*/2 > C1/C.
“Similar to the previous scenario, but C 2 C 1 > R * 2 > C 1 C .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In scenario C, C2/C1 > C1/C > R*/2.
“Similar to the previous scenario, but C 2 C 1 > C 1 C > R * 2 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the competitive version, if an entrepreneur has higher costs than the other, and this applies only to the case of different choices, then they have no returns due to competition.
“If an entrepreneur has higher costs than the other, and this applies only to the case of different choices, then they have no returns due to competition.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
If there is a dominant strategy, systematically lower cost and higher profit, then competition results in zero profit, making the alternative necessarily negative in profit and thus not selectable due to the exit condition.
“If there is a dominant strategy, systematically lower cost and higher profit, then competition results in zero profit, making the alternative necessarily negative in profit and thus not selectable due to the exit condition.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There exists an optimal level of quality-quantity of the natural resource common that is higher for local communities than for businesses.
“considering that there exists an optimal level of quality-quantity of the natural resource common (e.g., the river) that is higher for local communities (due to preferences related to the enjoyment of environmental amenities or tourism development) than for businesses.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Situations with incomplete contracts, where not all contingencies can be regulated, can occur.
“It is possible to find oneself in situations with incomplete contracts where not all contingencies can be regulated.”
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.
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
§ 3.2.2. Scenario B: no dominant strategy, lack of cooperation · p. 5
“Consequently, firms will not regenerate”
§ 3.2.2. Scenario B: no dominant strategy, lack of cooperation · p. 5
“( cRX = 0, cRY = R*), ( cRX = R*, cRY = 0).”
Citations
Cites
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
North, D. C. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808678 · Cited by 32,691
Hardin, G. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 · Cited by 25,167
Coase, R. H. (1960) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466560 · Cited by 18,255
Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship
Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. V. D. (1995) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.9.4.97 · Cited by 13,365
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)00037-9 · Cited by 2,876
Ysander, B.-C., & Arrow, K. J. (1975) · Ekonomisk Tidskrift · doi:10.2307/3438925 · Cited by 2,600
A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600105 · Cited by 2,085
Weitzman, M. L. (1974) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2296698 · Cited by 2,071
The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?
Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1093/reep/res016 · Cited by 1,928
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Boger, S., 2001. Agriculture Markets in Transition: an Empirical Study of Contracts and Transaction Costs in the Polish Hog Sector, Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources. Aachen. Shaker. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref7)
- Bovenberg, A., de Mooij, R., 1994. Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. Am. Econ. Rev. 84 (4), 1085 -1089. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/optdGML5oZVnt)
- Bruni, L., Smerilli, A., 2010. Cooperation and diversity: an evolutionary approach. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. MPRA Paper, no. 20564. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref9)
- Bulte, E., Ruben, R., 2023. Development Economics between Markets and Institutions: Incentives for Growth, Food Security and Sustainable Use of the Environment. BRILL. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref10)
- Grossi, G., Polsinelli, V., 2020. A sustainable management of water and soil: the case of river contracts. GeoProgress J. 7, 37 -55. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref26)
- Hakansson, H., Snehota, I., 1995. Developing Relationships in Business Networks. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref27)
- Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243 -1248. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref29)
- Jin, B.-H., Wu, C.-Y., Liao, Y.-T., 2015. How does social capital work in regional innovation systems? The moderating role of contract design. Adv. Manag. Appl. Econ. 5, 1 -19. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref35)
- Lorenzini, E., 2011. Distretti culturali, capitale sociale e nuove tecnologie dell ' informazione e della telecomunicazione. EyesReg 1 (3), 1 -3. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref39)
- Menard, C., 2007. The governance of hybrid organizations. Presented at the EmNet Conference On Economics And Management Of Networks , Rotterdam. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref41)
- Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511807763.
- Pesaro, G., 2011. Valorizzazione dei beni culturali e sviluppo locale: Una riflessione sui distretti culturali. EyesReg 1 (2), 46 -49. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref49)
- Porter, M.E., 1991. America ' s green strategy. Sci. Am. 264 (4), 91 -168. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/optizs1NsUhmo)
- Ricciardi, A., 2003. Le Reti di Imprese: Vantaggi Competitivi e Pianificazione Strategica. Franco Angeli, Milan. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref51)
- Shin, E., Choi, S.H., Makarigakis, A., Sohn, O., Clench, C., Trudeau, M., 2020. Water Reuse within a Circular Economy Context. Global Water Security Issues (GWSI), Series No. 2. UNESCO Publishing. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref55)
- United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations General Assembly, No. A/RES/70/1. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref61)
- United Nations, 2023. Global Sustainable Development Report 2023: Times of Crisis, Times of Change: Science for Accelerating Transformations to Sustainable Development. Independent group of scientists appointed by the Secretary-General. New York: United Nations. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref62)
- Williamson, O.E., 2004. Transaction cost economics and agriculture: an excursion. In: Verbeke, W., Lauwers, L. (Eds.), The Role of Institutions in Rural Policies and Agricultural Markets. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 19 -39. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(2403969-6/sref65)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schultz, F. C., Valentinov, V., & Pies, I. (2025) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.70046 · Cited by 14
Vera, C. L., Gandía, J. A. G., Ancillo, A. D. L., & Núñez, M. T. D. V. (2025) · Global Economics Research · doi:10.1016/j.ecores.2025.100011 · Cited by 12
Al-Maadid, A. A., Ali, M., & Mohammed, K. S. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-02279-2 · Cited by 5
Circular economy and the Titanic effect: Analysis of 145 case studies
Nogueira, M. B. G., Simpson, J. Y., Snow, A. C., Charnley, F., Avcı, B. Y., Brown, K., & Ahmed, T. (2025) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2025.07.012 · Cited by 4
Nur, T., Topaloğlu, E. E., Balsalobre‐Lorente, D., Sahin, S., Pilař, L., & Ege, İ. (2026) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-025-00901-w · Cited by 4
The role of civil society in promoting sustainable urban forests in Portugal
Almeida, F. L. (2025) · Arboricultural Journal · doi:10.1080/03071375.2025.2555750 · Cited by 4
Strategic Dynamics of Circular Economy Initiatives in Food Systems: A Game Theory Perspective
Lacombe, V., & Rajaonson, J. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17136025 · Cited by 2
Baslom, A., Magsood, T., Shooshtarian, S., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2026) · Smart and Sustainable Built Environment · doi:10.1108/sasbe-07-2025-0432 · Cited by 2
Ouldkhaoua, Y., Sahraoui, M., Laidani, Z. E.-A., Benabed, B., Abousnina, R. M., & Belgacem, M. E. G. (2025) · Asian Journal of Civil Engineering · doi:10.1007/s42107-025-01357-0 · Cited by 2
Judijanto, L. (2025) · Multitech Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.59890/mjst.v2i8.48 · Cited by 1
Network Basket Loan: A Civil Economy Financial InstrumentPreprint
Bova, D. M., Raffaele, L., & Aras, D. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5240418
Self-citationA relação do biodigestor com a qualidade do ar: revisão bibliométrica qualitativa
Cervo, L. V., D’Aquino, C. D. A., Nadaleti, W. C., & Filho, P. B. (2025) · Revista Gestão & Sustentabilidade · doi:10.36661/2596-142x.2025v7n1.15028
Kartläggning av potential till industriell och urban symbios : En fallstudie på Västra Mark i Växjö
Montén, J., & Persson, A. (2025) · DiVA (Linnaeus University)
Efficient Resource Recovery Via Bioinspired Nanotechnology
Jain, H., & Mathur, A. K. (2026) · Waste as a resource · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12685-6_1
A fenntarthatóság fogalmának kvantitatív szövegelemzése a magyar jogszabályokban
Vértesy, L. (2026) · Jogtudományi Közlöny · doi:10.59851/jk.81.07-08.2
The 2C model: examining the synergy between institutions to improve digital literacy
Desmaryani, S., Irmanelly, Herlina, Darmawan, & Soleh, A. (2026) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-09-2025-2769
Metadata
- Authors
- Becchetti, L., Bova, D. M., & Raffaele, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Becchetti, Leonardo
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 486
- Pages
- 144520-144520
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405494973
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11
- FWCI
- 4.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
- Keywords
- circular economy, tragedy of the commons, network contracts, multi-stakeholder governance, coordination failure, overexploitation, free-riding, short-termism, stakeholder heterogeneity, commons governance
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 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (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
