Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Data Examples

Version 1.1 by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/11 18:37
Show last authors
1 = Data Examples =
2
3 The following examples illustrate complete, realistic FactHarbor data objects
4 across Claims, Scenarios, Evidence, ScenarioEvidenceLinks, Verdicts, and
5 Re-evaluation behavior.
6
7 Each field is annotated with:
8
9 * **[A]** — fully automatable
10 * **[M]** — AI-draft, human validation needed
11 * **[H]** — human-only
12 * **[F]** — federation metadata (optional)
13
14 These examples conform to:
15
16 * Data Model (Ch. 5)
17 * Workflows (Ch. 6)
18 * Requirements (Ch. 2)
19 * Architecture (Ch. 3)
20 * AKEL (Ch. 4)
21
22 ----
23
24 = Example A — “Hydrogen cars are more energy efficient than EVs.” =
25
26 A clearly empirical, technical, domain-specific claim.
27
28 == Claim (ClaimID: C_H2EV) ==
29
30 |=Field|=Value|=Notes
31 |ClaimID|C_H2EV|
32 |VersionID|v1|
33 |Text|“Hydrogen cars are more energy efficient than battery electric vehicles (EVs).”|[H]
34 |Domain|energy_transport|[A]
35 |ClaimType|literal|[A]
36 |Evaluability|empirical|[A]
37 |SafetyCategory|medium|[A]
38 |ClusterID|CL_EnergyEff|[A]
39 |Status|active|
40
41 ----
42
43 == Scenario S_H2EV_01 — “Well-to-wheel efficiency, EU grid mix” ==
44
45 |=Field|=Value
46 |ScenarioID|S_H2EV_01
47 |VersionID|v1
48 |ClaimID|C_H2EV
49 |Definitions|//“Well-to-wheel efficiency” = total chain efficiency.// [H]
50 |Assumptions|EU 2020–24 grid mix, electrolysis 69%, compression losses 10%, fuel cell 55%. [M]
51 |ContextBoundary|Europe, 2020–2024 technology|[H]
52 |EvaluationMethod|Comparative WTW energy analysis|[A]
53 |SafetyClass|low
54 |Status|active|
55
56 ----
57
58 == Evidence ==
59
60 === Evidence E1 ===
61 Peer-reviewed energy-systems paper.
62
63 |=Field|=Value
64 |EvidenceID|E_H2EV_Paper1
65 |VersionID|v1
66 |Type|scientific_paper
67 |Category|empirical
68 |Reliability|high
69 |Provenance|Journal publication + DOI
70 |ExtractionMethod|AKEL + human verification
71 |Status|verified|
72
73 === Evidence E2 ===
74 Official EU dataset.
75
76 |=Field|=Value
77 |EvidenceID|E_H2EV_Dataset
78 |VersionID|v1
79 |Type|dataset
80 |Category|empirical
81 |Reliability|medium
82 |Provenance|EU Energy Stats 2023
83 |ExtractionMethod|API import
84 |Status|verified|
85
86 ----
87
88 == ScenarioEvidenceLinks ==
89
90 |=Scenario|=Evidence|=RelevanceScore|=Notes
91 |S_H2EV_01 v1|E_H2EV_Paper1 v1|0.92|[M]
92 |S_H2EV_01 v1|E_H2EV_Dataset v1|0.77|[M]
93
94 ----
95
96 == Verdict ==
97
98 === Verdict V_H2EV_01 v1 ===
99
100 |=Field|=Value
101 |VerdictID|V_H2EV_01
102 |VersionID|v1
103 |ClaimID|C_H2EV
104 |ScenarioID|S_H2EV_01
105 |EvidenceVersionSet|[E_H2EV_Paper1:v1, E_H2EV_Dataset:v1]
106 |LikelihoodRange|0.10–0.25|
107 |ExplanationSummary|EVs convert grid electricity to motion more efficiently than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles under EU assumptions.|
108 |ReasoningChain|Step-by-step efficiency-chain comparison|
109 |UncertaintyFactors|Variability in grid mix, future electrolysis improvements|
110 |Status|current|
111
112 ----
113
114 == Notes ==
115
116 * Many fields automatable (claim classification, domain, initial scenario structure, metadata extraction).
117 * Definitions and boundaries require human reasoning.
118
119 ----
120
121 = Example B — “Regular cold-water exposure (<14°C) for ≥6 months improves health.” =
122
123 A complex lifestyle/health claim requiring careful scenario boundaries.
124
125 == Claim (C_CW_Health) ==
126
127 |=Field|=Value
128 |Text|“Regular cold-water exposure below 14°C for at least 6 months improves health.”|
129 |Domain|health_lifestyle|
130 |ClaimType|literal|
131 |Evaluability|empirical|
132 |SafetyCategory|high|
133
134 ----
135
136 == Scenario S_CW_01 — “Short daily immersions in healthy adults” ==
137
138 |=Field|=Value
139 |ScenarioID|S_CW_01
140 |VersionID|v1
141 |Definitions|“Regular exposure” = 3–7×/week, 2–4 minutes|
142 |Assumptions|Healthy adults, no cardiovascular risk|
143 |ContextBoundary|6+ months, 8–14°C|
144 |EvaluationMethod|Health outcome comparison|
145 |SafetyClass|high|
146
147 ----
148
149 == Evidence ==
150
151 === Evidence E1 — Dutch cold-shower RCT ===
152
153 |=Field|=Value
154 |Type|scientific_paper|
155 |Category|empirical|
156 |Reliability|high|
157 |ExtractionMethod|AKEL + human validation|
158
159 === Evidence E2 — Meta-analysis on immersion effects ===
160
161 |=Field|=Value
162 |Category|empirical|
163 |Reliability|medium|
164
165 ----
166
167 == ScenarioEvidenceLinks ==
168
169 |=Scenario|=Evidence|=Score
170 |S_CW_01|E1|0.82
171 |S_CW_01|E2|0.75
172
173 ----
174
175 == Verdict ==
176
177 |=Field|=Value
178 |LikelihoodRange|0.40–0.65 (uncertain)|
179 |ExplanationSummary|Some benefits (mood, perceived recovery), but long-term health improvement unclear.|
180 |UncertaintyFactors|Small sample sizes, lifestyle confounds|
181
182 ----
183
184 == Notes ==
185
186 * Medical ethics → high human involvement.
187 * AKEL helpful for metadata, summaries, and links.
188
189 ----
190
191 = Example C — “Hillary Clinton communicates with Eleanor Roosevelt.” =
192
193 A belief/metaphorical/non-falsifiable claim.
194
195 == Claim (C_HC_ER) ==
196
197 |=Field|=Value
198 |Text|“Hillary Clinton communicates with Eleanor Roosevelt.”|
199 |Domain|politics_private_beliefs|
200 |ClaimType|metaphorical|
201 |Evaluability|non-falsifiable|
202 |SafetyCategory|low|
203
204 ----
205
206 == Scenario S_ER_01 — Literal paranormal interpretation ==
207
208 |=Field|=Value
209 |Definitions|“Communicate” = literal paranormal communication [H]|
210 |Assumptions|Paranormal abilities exist [H]|
211 |EvaluationMethod|Not empirically testable|
212 |SafetyClass|low|
213 |Evaluability|non-falsifiable|
214
215 ----
216
217 == Evidence ==
218
219 Minimal placeholder:
220
221 |=Field|=Value
222 |EvidenceID|E_None|
223 |Type|none|
224 |Category|none|
225 |Reliability|low|
226
227 ----
228
229 == Verdict ==
230
231 LikelihoodRange: **undefined**
232 Status: **non-evaluable**
233 Reasoning: claim is non-falsifiable.
234
235 ----
236
237 = Example D — “Hillary Clinton is a witch.” =
238
239 Clearly rhetorical/metaphorical.
240
241 == Claim (C_HC_Witch) ==
242
243 |=Field|=Value
244 |Text|“Hillary Clinton is a witch.”|
245 |Domain|rhetoric|
246 |ClaimType|rhetorical|
247 |Evaluability|non-falsifiable|
248 |SafetyCategory|low|
249
250 ----
251
252 == Scenario S_Witch_01 — Literal interpretation ==
253
254 |=Field|=Value
255 |Definitions|Supernatural definition of “witch”|
256 |Assumptions|Supernatural powers exist|
257 |EvaluationMethod|Non-testable|
258 |Evaluability|non-falsifiable|
259
260 ----
261
262 == Evidence ==
263
264 None required.
265
266 ----
267
268 == Verdict ==
269
270 Likelihood: **undefined**
271 Reasoning: rhetorical, not empirical.
272
273 ----
274
275 = Automation Summary Across Examples =
276
277 == Fully Automatable [A] ==
278 * Claim normalization
279 * Claim clustering
280 * Evidence metadata extraction
281 * Initial scenario scaffolding
282 * Reliability heuristics
283 * Relevance ranking
284 * Draft verdicts
285 * Trigger detection
286
287 == Mixed [M] ==
288 * Assumptions
289 * Context boundaries
290 * Relevance scoring
291 * Reasoning chain
292 * Uncertainty factors
293
294 == Human-only [H] ==
295 * Definitions
296 * Ethical constraints
297 * High-risk scenario approval
298 * Interpretation of meaning
299 * Final verdict approval