Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0050 — Journalism and Other Truth-Seeking Disciplines
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q003

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — procedural vs. conceptual implementation
Criteria applied consistently	Yes — same test applied to all sources
Scope appropriate	Yes — searched fact-checking, content moderation, and academic contexts

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 3 searches targeting different angles
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — specifically searched for operationalization
All results dispositioned	Yes
Source diversity achieved	Some concerns — limited to 3 sources; internal platform procedures not accessible

Notes: The search comprehensiveness is the main concern. Internal platform moderation procedures and unpublished academic coding schemes are not accessible through web search.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
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — the vocabulary adoption is acknowledged
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — internal platform procedures flagged

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Report positions taxonomy as conceptual framework	Title includes "Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making"	Yes
SRC02	Framework remains primarily conceptual	WebFetch confirmed "primarily conceptual" and "positioned as guidance"	Yes
SRC03	Categories adopted as vocabulary, not procedure	Search results confirm vocabulary adoption with unstructured moderation	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was straightforward for this query. The evidence is consistent and the finding is clear. The main limitation is search access to internal procedures.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Meta-conflict (declared): Marginally relevant. The researcher's prompt is not competing with the Wardle/Derakhshan taxonomy — they operate at different levels (research methodology vs. content classification). The finding does not benefit the researcher's interests.
Confirmation risk: Low. The finding is well-supported by convergent evidence and meaningful search absence.