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 77 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 56, shared 20. 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.

Show calculation

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)