Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Media · 1efd24fe Medicine · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The study reports Jaccard similarity of 0.159 between the platform datasets. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports a Jaccard similarity coefficient of 0.159 between the platform datasets.

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

Registered views

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.

• “The exploratory clinical-trial social-media comparison reported a Jaccard similarity coefficient of 0.159 between the Bluesky and Twitter/X discussion datasets.” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
• “An exploratory comparison of clinical-trial discussions found more cohesive, research-oriented discourse on Bluesky and more fragmented, event-driven...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The study reports Jaccard similarity of 0.159 between the platform datasets.

  From Accessing clinical trial information via two social media platforms: the new normal for patients and stakeholders Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• The passage directly reports a Jaccard similarity coefficient of 0.159 between the platform datasets.

  From Accessing clinical trial information via two social media platforms: the new normal for patients and stakeholders Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• The primary study directly reports the 0.159 Bluesky/X Jaccard coefficient and cautions that the exploratory comparison is context-dependent.

  From Accessing clinical trial information via two social media platforms: the new normal for patients and stakeholders Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Primary peer-reviewed social-media health-communication study; distinct platform-comparison topic.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
caa28a9e		b68e162a

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.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	b68e162a, be1128cc, ee5e4cb4

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
16741	APPENDED
16742	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
16751	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
16753	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
17560	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)