Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

The study described the Antiochia ad Cragum site as the largest agricultural-processing installation found so far at that ancient city.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 22354 · qualifiers {"location":"Antiochia ad Cragum."}

an inference word joins a premise to a conclusion; consider separate claims and an edge

Referenced 102 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 69, shared 32. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Archaeology · 1efd24fe Ancient · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 0 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 0 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:7a7637de-8216-8298-b04c-4a2c9a9a478a

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 0 of 4 review checks have been done.Every quoted passage was confirmed on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The report says the study calls this the largest agricultural-processing installation yet found at Antiochia ad Cragum. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly describes the site as the largest agricultural-processing installation found so far at Antiochia ad Cragum.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed, primary source 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
074a7f2c07be83f8

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: 0 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author. No independent review yet. 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 reviewedno

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The report says the study calls this the largest agricultural-processing installation yet found at Antiochia ad Cragum. a8f6d1cf

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 074a7f2c

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found none. 793a8aa2

Review checks: 0 of 4. coverage:7a7637de-8216-8298-b04c-4a2c9a9a478a

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

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
22354APPENDED
22355ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
22368LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24229TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)