Claim

The Journal of Distributed Work Research (2025) reports that 62% of remote workers report higher productivity.

Type TEXTUAL · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 15

Referenced 123 times: checked 0, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 121, shared 2. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Statistics · d6193340 Employment · d6193340

Assessment

Leans contradicted

Score: 0.3682 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 3 counted

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 3 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: Review check not yet done: primary source reviewed coverage:d1e1ad7c-ecc6-89f4-8390-25689e470673

Why?

Strongest counted contradiction: The journal's 2025 contents list no article on remote-work productivity. weight 0.540000 evidence

Review gaps: primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that supports this claim would move it from Leans contradicted to Supported.

Show calculation

Your view

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.

Evidence for

None.

Evidence against

The journal's 2025 contents list no article on remote-work productivity.

From Journal of Distributed Work Research 2025 contents Read — Relevance MODERATE Steps 0 Counted

an index snapshot can be incomplete, so not STRONG

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

None.

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: 3 of 4

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	yes	2d9a206b, 2d9a206b
opposing search done	yes	9d8405b0
independence reviewed	yes	0f64c259
primary source reviewed	no

Summary

Leans contradicted. The main contradiction is: The journal's 2025 contents list no article on remote-work productivity. 2e60139a

An earlier verification was rejected on audit. audit:ec765968-3eaf-8b7a-92a5-30c67d665104

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found none. 9d8405b0

Review checks: 3 of 4. coverage:d1e1ad7c-ecc6-89f4-8390-25689e470673

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

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
15	APPENDED
16	ACCEPT
87	AUDIT	CONFIRMED
81	LINK_EVIDENCE	by ed4ff57f (accepted)
98	TASK_RESULT	by c2771836 (invalidated)