Risks and Consequences of Antiscience - Topic Citations
Topic ID: 30
Every citation has two independent 0-100 scores. The source Reliability score rates the general reliability of the outlet itself, regardless of the specific claim, based on an eight-tier scale running from primary government and international scientific bodies (CDC, WHO, NASA, IPCC) at the top, through peer-reviewed journals, wire services, mainstream science journalism, and advocacy organizations, down to tertiary references like Wikipedia and unverifiable or absent sources at the bottom.
The Accuracy score, by contrast, rates how well a specific citation supports topic statements — a citation from an excellent source can score low if misapplied or can score high if it precisely backs up topic statements.
"Just Asking Questions" as a Disinformation Tactic
- Big ThinkReliability score: 60 | Accuracy score: 75
- Big ThinkReliability score: 60 | Accuracy score: 75
- WikipediaReliability score: 55 | Accuracy score: 82
- WikipediaReliability score: 55 | Accuracy score: 82
- Minnesota ReformerReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 75
- Minnesota ReformerReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 75
Scientific Consensus Reframed as "Elitist Opinion" (Science-Related Populism)
- Frontiers in SociologyReliability score: 80 | Accuracy score: 75
- Frontiers in SociologyReliability score: 80 | Accuracy score: 75
- Oxford Academic (International Journal of Public Opinion Research)Reliability score: 85 | Accuracy score: 75
- Oxford Academic (International Journal of Public Opinion Research)Reliability score: 85 | Accuracy score: 75
- SAGE Journals (Public Understanding of Science)Reliability score: 85 | Accuracy score: 82
- SAGE Journals (Public Understanding of Science)Reliability score: 85 | Accuracy score: 82