Hypothesis-result consistency in preregistration audit
Judges: one (preregistered hypothesis, final-paper claim). Questions: choice:status - confirmed|reversed|unaddressed|reworded. Action: Report of HARKing risk.
CA clean typed decision with low volume or low value, or too vague to act on.2.65
Key facts
- Vertical
- Research & science
- Function
- Research & education
- Status
- Idea
- Volume
- one-off
- Value
- meaningful
- Risk
- moderate
- Evidence
- —
- Flags
- None
Build this with a classifier
Define a typed decision with a bounded answer, then evaluate it on examples.
{
"decision_type": "choice",
"question": "Does this input match the decision in “Hypothesis-result consistency in preregistration audit”?",
"input": "<input to classify>",
"output": "one label from a fixed list"
}Related use cases
Cite this
Copy a link in your preferred format.