Strategies to Counter Antiscience - Topic Citations
Topic ID: 32
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.
Prebunking / Inoculation Theory
- Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change / PropWatchReliability score: 63 | Accuracy score: 82
- Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change / PropWatchReliability score: 63 | Accuracy score: 82
Moral Reframing (Purity/Stewardship Framing)
- Wiley (Social and Personality Psychology Compass)Reliability score: 84 | Accuracy score: 75
- Wiley (Social and Personality Psychology Compass)Reliability score: 84 | Accuracy score: 75
- SAGE Journals (Psychological Science)Reliability score: 86 | Accuracy score: 75
- SAGE Journals (Psychological Science)Reliability score: 86 | Accuracy score: 75
Technique Rebuttal (FLICC Framework)
- John Cook et al. / Skeptical ScienceReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 75
- John Cook et al. / Skeptical ScienceReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 75