Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

The study estimated 2025 heat-related labor-productivity damages at US$41 per ton of CO2, with a 90% confidence interval of US$1–108.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 20323

Referenced 100 times: checked 2, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 70, shared 28. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Economics · 1efd24fe Climate · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.9734 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

2 independent evidence lineages · review checks 1 of 4 · stability HIGH

Main unresolved issue: 4 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:18231de9-03fd-8080-9717-30a46cb54d15

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

Why?

Strongest counted support: The supplied passage directly gives the 2025 estimate of US$41 per ton CO2 and its 90% confidence interval of US$1–108. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The primary study reports its heat-related labor damage estimate and uncertainty interval.; The primary Nature Climate Change article reports US$41 per ton CO2 in 2025 heat-related labour productivity damages with a 90% confidence interval of US$1–108.

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 Supported.

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
d5350a76917c7431
7a4276bb917c7431

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

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 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 reviewedyesc0a8a84b, 917c7431, c761813d, d4ca045c

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The supplied passage directly gives the 2025 estimate of US$41 per ton CO2 and its 90% confidence interval of US$1–108. 51b96e06

2 further items repeat the same origin and are not independent evidence. d5350a767a4276bb

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. 1aa6c6fb

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:18231de9-03fd-8080-9717-30a46cb54d15

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

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
20323APPENDED
20324ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
20341LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
20417LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
22018TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24331TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)