Skip to content

R0044/2026-04-01/Q003 — Self-Audit

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria

Rating: Low risk

Criterion Assessment
Criteria defined before searching Yes — sought publications explicitly connecting both vocabulary sets
Criteria applied consistently Yes — same standard applied to all sources
Criteria shift detected No

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion Assessment
Multiple search strategies used Yes — direct bridge search + overreliance as bridging concept
Searches designed to test each hypothesis Yes
All results dispositioned Yes — 20 results returned, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved Moderate — 3 sources, 2 showing bridging, 1 counterexample

Notes: Concern: Only 3 sources directly relevant. The small number reflects the scarcity of bridging work rather than insufficient searching. Conference proceedings and working group outputs may contain bridging work not indexed in web search.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency

Rating: Low risk

Criterion Assessment
All sources scored using same framework Yes
Evidence typed consistently Yes
ACH matrix applied Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed Yes

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness

Rating: Low risk

Criterion Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing Yes — H1 (formal bridge) was actively searched for
Contradictory evidence surfaced Yes — Malmqvist counterexample included
Confidence calibrated to evidence Yes — Medium reflects small source base
Gaps acknowledged Yes

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification

Rating: Low risk

Source Claim in Assessment Source Actually Says Match?
SRC01 Uses both automation bias and sycophancy Directly verified: paper explicitly discusses both Yes
SRC03 No reference to human factors Directly verified: no human factors terms found Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Overall Assessment

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

Researcher Bias Check

  • Gap-confirming bias: The query implied the bridge does not exist. The evidence mostly confirms this but Ibrahim et al. was surfaced as a meaningful exception. The assessment appropriately distinguishes between formal and functional bridging.