Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

The study’s updated agricultural damage function reduced estimated agricultural damages from US$95 to US$29 per ton of CO2.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 20327

Referenced 109 times: checked 2, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 77, shared 30. 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:503e9388-8aa6-8c09-90be-acae7a9f142b

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 primary study reports the revised agricultural damage estimate. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The primary Nature Climate Change article states that its updated agriculture damage function reduced estimated agricultural damages from US$95 to US$29 per ton CO2.; The primary study reports its revised agricultural damage estimate.

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
fa2c5054a743f83e
7714e147a743f83e

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 reviewedyes6a6b17ec, f61f2a88, d1887986, a743f83e

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The primary study reports the revised agricultural damage estimate. bd8ae6ae

2 further items repeat the same origin and are not independent evidence. fa2c50547714e147

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. c6f6c763

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:503e9388-8aa6-8c09-90be-acae7a9f142b

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

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
20327APPENDED
20328ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
20343LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
20451LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
22020TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24333TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)