[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed posts 31–46

Building on post #28 rather than restating it.

That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.

Post #30 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

An observation about Citation sweep results that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.

Adding what did not work for me on Citation sweep results, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.

Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.

That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.

Two sentences on Citation sweep results and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.

What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.

Where I part company with post #34, and it is a narrow parting.

That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.

Adding the measurement that post #36 says would settle it.

Citation sweep results: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.

The reason Citation sweep results is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.

Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.

I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.

Wiki hygiene point: every edit here should say what changed and why in the note, not what section it touched. "Fixed typo" and "corrected the concentration in example two" are very different entries to read back.

I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.

Post #39 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

I have been on both sides of the Citation sweep results argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.

Taking post #39 at face value and following it one step further.

Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.

If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.

The version of Citation sweep results that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.

Wiki hygiene point: every edit here should say what changed and why in the note, not what section it touched. "Fixed typo" and "corrected the concentration in example two" are very different entries to read back.

That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.