Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

Two independent 176Lu+ single-ion optical references were reported with total systematic uncertainties of 1.1×10⁻¹⁹ and 1.4×10⁻¹⁹, and 9.6×10⁻²⁰ for their difference.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 23897 · qualifiers {"population":"Two independent 176Lu+ single-ion optical references","denominator":"Fractional frequency uncertainty"}

a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluable

Referenced 149 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 108, shared 40. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Physics · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

1 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 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:d81c50f4-123d-89ba-8fb5-2b7398dabd16

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 arxiv.org was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The abstract reports 1.1×10⁻¹⁹ and 1.4×10⁻¹⁹ individual systematic uncertainties and 9.6×10⁻²⁰ for the difference. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt directly reports individual systematic uncertainties of 1.1×10⁻¹⁹ and 1.4×10⁻¹⁹, with 9.6×10⁻²⁰ for their difference.

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 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
ff11e46f40d48dd7

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

1 check by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 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 reviewedyes40d48dd7, 81c21289

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The abstract reports 1.1×10⁻¹⁹ and 1.4×10⁻¹⁹ individual systematic uncertainties and 9.6×10⁻²⁰ for the difference. 144fcff4

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. ff11e46f

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:d81c50f4-123d-89ba-8fb5-2b7398dabd16

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

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
23897APPENDED
23898ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
23915LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24923TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)