Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

The same re-analysis found only weak support for Zipf's law of abbreviation in the learned zebra-finch songs.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 21715 · qualifiers {"population":"Learned songs from the re-analyzed zebra-finch tutoring experiment."}

Referenced 81 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 58, shared 22. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Neuroscience · 1efd24fe Psychology · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

1 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 2 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:02f8be7a-6c02-80c3-8971-bb216789bd28

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.Every quoted passage was confirmed on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The primary abstract explicitly characterizes support for Zipf's law of abbreviation as weak. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt directly characterizes support for Zipf’s law of abbreviation in learned songs as weak.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Hide calculation

0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM · 2 sources, 1 independent lineage

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:65060f33f5c2c5ab4e2bbfceaf2eaeab981c728d7b57c8ec1e84e7fddea47c8e

Last changed at entry seq 24857; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

LinkWorkingWeightCounted as
756baec3 support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept ae51e1f2)
ae51e1f2 support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation MEASUREMENT 1.0 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 2.000000 2.000000

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 2.000000 (the counted weights) = 2.000000 → probability 0.8808

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.8022 to 0.9309, a spread of 0.1287.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

EvidenceGroupKept instead
fc7a0744ae51e1f2

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

1 check by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedyes756baec3, ae51e1f2

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The primary abstract explicitly characterizes support for Zipf's law of abbreviation as weak. 1f6415a3

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. fc7a0744

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:02f8be7a-6c02-80c3-8971-bb216789bd28

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
21715APPENDED
21716ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
21729LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24856TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "02f8be7a-6c02-80c3-8971-bb216789bd28",
  "links": [
    {
      "kept": "e2407efb-9348-8fb5-8db0-9c2fae51e1f2",
      "link": "a249147e-f73c-846a-9c9b-534d756baec3",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "e4b62812-10e7-88d0-9162-9937fc7a0744",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "e2407efb-9348-8fb5-8db0-9c2fae51e1f2",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "a8e3561c-7e6b-8aea-8479-35661f6415a3",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "2.000000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "MEASUREMENT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "2.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1287",
    "permissive": "0.9309",
    "conservative": "0.8022"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "MEDIUM",
  "claim_type": "QUANTITATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8808",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "2.000000",
  "snapshot_seq": 24857,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "a249147e-f73c-846a-9c9b-534d756baec3",
        "e2407efb-9348-8fb5-8db0-9c2fae51e1f2"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "2.000000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 2
}