Organisation assessments
Assessments describe organisational publishing practices within a stated scope. They are preliminary AI-assisted desk assessments, not independent audits, paper grades or claim-confidence scores.
Seven dimensions use 0–5 anchors. The overall score is the equally weighted mean of applicable dimensions, scaled to 100 and rounded to a whole number. At least five dimensions must apply and all applicable dimensions must be assessed. Compare only matching profiles and scopes.
Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension.
Method version
kmf-organisation-knowledge-v1
| 0 | Evidence demonstrates a specific absence or contradiction of the criterion within the assessed scope. |
|---|---|
| 1 | General claims or assertions with minimal identifiable supporting practice. |
| 2 | Some concrete supporting practice, with substantial gaps in the sampled material. |
| 3 | Documented procedures or traceable practice in the sampled material; compliance is not independently established. |
| 4 | Detailed standards and directly inspectable implementation examples within the stated sample. |
| 5 | Sustained practice independently verified through an explicit audit or reproducible evaluation. |
#HalfTheStory
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Sampled organisation and impact descriptions; reported percentages are not treated as independently verified effects.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 2 / 5 | Evaluation measures are named, but full independent study appraisal was not established. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | Impact indicators and further reading are given; study-level tracing is limited. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | Co-design and mixed-method evaluation are described without a complete inspected protocol. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | Sufficient financial/conflict disclosure detail was not established in the sampled pages. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | The sample emphasises positive programme indicators, with limited methodological qualification. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | Recent programme periods are identified; correction procedures were not established. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Youth governance and organisational leadership are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
American Academy of Pediatrics
Assessment profile: Institutional or public-interest explanation; not an endorsement of every recommendation.
AAP professional publishing processes and sampled media guidance; GRADE requirements are not retroactively assigned to every resource.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 4 / 5 | Guideline and policy processes explicitly use evidence reviews. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Published guidance identifies its research base and links supporting professional resources. |
| Methodological transparency | 4 / 5 | Formal guideline and policy-development processes are documented, with different evidence processes distinguished. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | A research financial-conflict policy is public; implementation was not independently audited. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The GRADE approach distinguishes evidence certainty; the sampled media resource is not itself a clinical trial. |
| Updating & corrections | 4 / 5 | A five-year policy review cycle and current/expired guideline categories are documented. |
| Expertise & governance | 4 / 5 | Medical expert authorship, peer review and board oversight are specified. |
| Overall knowledge score | 74.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Association for Psychological Science — journals
Assessment profile: Journal editorial processes; never a paper grade.
Current APS journal policies plus catalogue publication identity; 2024 requirements are not retroactively attributed to the 2016 sample.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Empirical submissions have specified research and review requirements. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Persistent identifiers for data, materials and preregistration are required under current policy. |
| Methodological transparency | 4 / 5 | Research transparency statements detail methods and availability constraints. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Funding and competing-interest disclosures are explicit requirements. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Transparency exemptions must be explained; evidential conclusions remain paper-specific. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Correction policies distinguish notices and corrected versions. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Editorial and author accountability are specified. |
| Overall knowledge score | 66.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Australian Federal Register of Legislation
Assessment profile: Primary legal record: scientific grounding and argumentative balance may be not applicable.
Versioning and editorial provenance of the primary legal register, not policy efficacy.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not applicable | Not applicable: a primary legal register does not test empirical effectiveness. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Title and compilation identifiers distinguish legislation and versions. |
| Methodological transparency | 4 / 5 | Statutory editorial-change powers and their limits are documented. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | A budget/conflict assessment of the publishing operation was not completed. |
| Balance & uncertainty | Not applicable | Not applicable: this scope concerns fidelity to the legal record, not balanced scientific argument. |
| Updating & corrections | 4 / 5 | Running and historical editorial-change reports are published. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The First Parliamentary Counsel's editorial responsibilities are specified. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Brookings Institution
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Brookings publishing policies and the sampled school-phone survey commentary.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Research-informed publishing is documented; the sampled survey commentary is not a causal trial. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | Authors, research context and source links are identifiable in the sample. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Scholar responsibility for methods and conclusions is specified; the short article does not expose every study detail. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Donor reporting, disclosure rules and scholarly independence policies are published. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The sampled article acknowledges uncertainty and distinguishes reported behaviour from policy effects. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | Publication dates are visible; a full correction-performance audit was not completed. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Scholar and institutional governance responsibilities are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | 57.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Public research, advisory and funding processes; programme-effect claims still need independent evaluation.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Research grants and interdisciplinary evidence activities are documented. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | Named research projects, investigators and awards are identifiable. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Grant eligibility, review and reporting procedures are described. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | A technology-industry funding exclusion is declared; donor independence was not audited. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The Evidence Council describes consensus, divergence and qualification. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Dated grant calls and completed project records provide an update trail. |
| Expertise & governance | 4 / 5 | A named multidisciplinary scientific advisory board and its responsibilities are published. |
| Overall knowledge score | 63.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés
Assessment profile: Legal/procedural publishing; scientific grounding may be not applicable when no empirical conclusion is being evaluated.
Legal/procedural publishing and the sampled mobile-permission guidance.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not applicable | Not applicable: this scope evaluates legal and procedural guidance, not an empirical health conclusion. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | The sampled permission guidance identifies its regulatory context. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Public consultation and recommendation-development activities are documented. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 4 / 5 | Annual budget data and its parliamentary basis are publicly available. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Permission, consent and compliance contexts are distinguished in the sampled guidance. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Dated recommendations and annual reporting provide a visible update trail. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The authority's remit and reporting responsibilities are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | 63.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Common Sense Media
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Research-programme and funding descriptions, not a grade for every media rating.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | A research programme and archived datasets are identified. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | Research reports and named research leadership are linked. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | The sampled pages describe research and rating practices without a full protocol audit. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Funding and independence positions and annual reporting are publicly described. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | The sampled programme pages are advocacy-oriented; study-level balance needs separate review. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Dated research reports provide a visible publication sequence. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Research leadership and editorial roles are identified. |
| Overall knowledge score | 54.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Cyberlite
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Stated research/advisory methods and selected case-study descriptions.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 2 / 5 | The sample describes research-informed practice, without an independent outcome appraisal. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | Partners and case studies are named, but research citation detail is limited. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Survey, interview, co-design and impact-measurement approaches are described. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 2 / 5 | Public/private partnerships are identified; full finance and conflict management were not established. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | The pages distinguish impact questions from awareness, but emphasise programme promotion. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | Dated case-study contexts are visible; correction procedures were not established. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Advisory roles and education delivery responsibilities are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | 46.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
e-Enfance / 3018
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Public activity, organisational and funding reports; service quality and effectiveness are not certified.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 2 / 5 | Operational experience and an observatory inform resources; this is not causal efficacy evidence. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | Activity reports and source organisations are identifiable. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | Programme and reporting activities are described, without a full outcome-method audit. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | The annual report discloses a mixed public/private funding structure. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | Public reporting documents activity, but activity counts are not demonstrated programme effects. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Successive dated annual reports provide a publication trail. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Management and observatory responsibilities are named. |
| Overall knowledge score | 49.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Elsevier journal publishing
Assessment profile: Journal editorial processes; never a paper grade.
Shared journal-publishing policies and catalogue metadata; Journal of Adolescent Health and Computers in Human Behavior still require separate paper appraisal.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Journal publication ethics describe peer review; this is not scientific validation of each result. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Catalogue articles carry persistent publication identifiers and research references. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Publisher policies address editorial independence and research data; journal-level implementation varies. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Author support, sponsor roles and competing interests must be disclosed; corporate independence is not inferred. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Editorial ethics address objective review and evidential support. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Correction, concern and retraction procedures preserve the publication record. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Editor, reviewer, author and publisher responsibilities are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | 63.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
European Data Protection Supervisor
Assessment profile: Legal/procedural publishing; scientific grounding may be not applicable when no empirical conclusion is being evaluated.
EDPS legal/procedural reference publishing and public accountability.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not applicable | Not applicable: legal/procedural guidance is not an empirical effectiveness claim. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | Published rules of procedure and the reference library identify the legal context. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Accountability, transparency and reporting procedures are explicit. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | A sufficiently specific budget/conflict disclosure assessment was not completed in this sample. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The legal remit and scope of the reference material are identifiable. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Annual report archives provide a recurring publication trail. |
| Expertise & governance | 4 / 5 | Statutory independence and a published ethics framework define responsibilities. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
FlippGen
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Public website and youth-led education model; lived experience is not treated as a substitute for efficacy evidence.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 1 / 5 | The sampled homepage asserts quantitative screen-use context without an inspected study trail. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 1 / 5 | Practical resource links are visible, while study-level support for outcome claims is limited. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | Near-peer workshop and youth-governance processes are described. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | Financial/conflict disclosure was not sufficiently established in this sample. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | The stated approach distinguishes education from blanket bans; empirical qualification is limited. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Dated blog entries provide a current publication sequence. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The youth decision-making structure and legal organisation identity are published. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Huberman Lab
Assessment profile: Editorial or educational content, not clinical efficacy evidence.
Commercial-disclosure and production-identity check only; no scientific endorsement of podcast content.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not assessed | Scientific content was not appraised in this disclosure-only scope. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | Not assessed | Episode-level research citations were not appraised in this scope. |
| Methodological transparency | Not assessed | Episode-level research interpretation methods were not appraised in this scope. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 4 / 5 | Sponsor listings, affiliate arrangements, compensated advisory roles and ownership interests are explicitly disclosed. |
| Balance & uncertainty | Not assessed | Scientific balance was not appraised in this disclosure-only scope. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Changes to sponsorship and limitations of back-catalog updates are described. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The podcast's production identity and separation from university work are explicit. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Information Systems Research / INFORMS
Assessment profile: Journal editorial processes; never a paper grade.
ISR-specific publication policies and a sampled classroom paper; policies from other INFORMS journals are not assumed identical.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Double-anonymous review and research contribution requirements are documented. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Reference, provenance and supplemental-material requirements support tracing. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Submission and editorial procedures are specified; data-sharing practice was not fully audited. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Author funding and editorial-conflict disclosures are required. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Scope and scholarly contribution must be stated; conclusions still need study-level appraisal. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | Editorial policy updates are dated; a complete correction procedure was not verified. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Editors, reviewers and their responsibilities are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | 60.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
JAMA Network
Assessment profile: Journal editorial processes; never a paper grade.
Current JAMA Network publication policies plus sampled correction records; not a grade for each paper or retrospective proof of policy compliance.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 4 / 5 | Journal policies specify research review and reporting standards. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Source articles and linked correction notices provide inspectable publication trails. |
| Methodological transparency | 4 / 5 | Author instructions define reporting, accountability and editorial procedures. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Funding and competing-interest disclosures are required; organisational compliance was not audited. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Reporting standards support qualification of findings; article-level evidential balance is separately assessed. |
| Updating & corrections | 4 / 5 | Correction procedures and actual correction records in the catalogue are visible. |
| Expertise & governance | 4 / 5 | Editorial responsibility, author accountability and conflict-recusal procedures are explicit. |
| Overall knowledge score | 74.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
LiveMore ScreenLess
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Limited toolkit check only; most dimensions remain unassessed.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 2 / 5 | The sampled toolkit points to scholarly resources, without an inspected evidence synthesis. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | A resource-library route is provided; individual study tracing was not completed. |
| Methodological transparency | Not assessed | Insufficient inspected material for a methodological assessment. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | Insufficient inspected material for funding/conflict assessment. |
| Balance & uncertainty | Not assessed | Insufficient inspected material for balance/uncertainty assessment. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | The toolkit carries a 2024 revision identifier; a complete update process was not assessed. |
| Expertise & governance | Not assessed | Insufficient inspected official governance material. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Ministerio del Interior — Spain
Assessment profile: Legal/procedural publishing; scientific grounding may be not applicable when no empirical conclusion is being evaluated.
Publisher provenance of the joint campaign announcement; this score is not assigned to Fundación Legálitas or to intervention effectiveness.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not applicable | Not applicable: campaign provenance and legal communication, not empirical efficacy, are being assessed. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | The announcement names participating bodies and a campaign destination; legal provisions are less directly cited. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | Campaign format, purpose and participants are described; an outcome evaluation is not supplied. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | Campaign-specific funding and conflict management were not established. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | The communication is deterrence-focused, with limited legal qualification in the sampled announcement. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | The announcement and preceding campaign dates are recorded. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Named police and legal professionals and the governmental publisher are identifiable. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
Assessment profile: Institutional or public-interest explanation; not an endorsement of every recommendation.
NCCIH information practices and the qigong explainer used in the Energetic Exercises pilot.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | The sampled explainer separates practice descriptions from reviewed research. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Named research references and study context are provided. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | NIH information-quality processes apply; the explainer is not a new systematic review. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Governmental funding and non-endorsement policies are explicit. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 4 / 5 | Limited evidence and uncertainty are discussed rather than treating traditional explanations as established mechanisms. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | The page has a stated update date and the site explains its variable update schedule. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Institutional responsibility and expert review acknowledgements are identifiable. |
| Overall knowledge score | 66.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Assessment profile: Institutional or public-interest explanation; not an endorsement of every recommendation.
NIH information-quality processes and the sampled NIGMS educational explainer.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | The sampled explainer describes established biological concepts rather than an app-specific mechanism. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | The explainer links contextual resources but does not provide a full study-level bibliography. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | NIH information-quality procedures are published; this is an educational explanation. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | The governmental funding and institutional context are explicit; no financial audit was performed. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The sampled explanation distinguishes multiple neurotransmitter functions and conditions. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | The article carries a publication date; a complete revision trail was not assessed. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | A named author and NIH information-quality responsibilities are identifiable. |
| Overall knowledge score | 54.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Office of the U.S. Surgeon General
Assessment profile: Institutional or public-interest explanation; not an endorsement of every recommendation.
Publishing provenance and evidence presentation of the 2023 social-media advisory, not all HHS or later advisories.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 4 / 5 | The 2023 advisory describes its research base and prioritisation of reviews. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | Endnotes and an archived full report support statement tracing. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | The advisory describes a substantial review rather than an exhaustive systematic review. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 2 / 5 | The governmental issuer is identified; advisory-specific conflict-management detail was not established. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 4 / 5 | Benefits, harms and unanswered questions are explicitly distinguished. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | The assessed advisory is dated and archived; a complete revision policy was not established. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The issuing office and expert acknowledgements are identifiable. |
| Overall knowledge score | 63.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
PNAS Nexus
Assessment profile: Journal editorial processes; never a paper grade.
PNAS Nexus journal processes and a linked research sample; not an assessment of all NAS or OUP outputs.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 4 / 5 | Research manuscripts are subject to specified independent peer review. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | References and dataset identifiers are required and a linked sample paper is available. |
| Methodological transparency | 4 / 5 | Materials, data, code and statistical-reporting requirements are detailed. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Funding, competing interests and publication charges are disclosed in policy; enforcement was not audited. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Study reporting supports qualified interpretation, but does not replace paper-level appraisal. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Correction and retraction procedures are published; correction performance was not audited. |
| Expertise & governance | 4 / 5 | Editorial-board and review responsibilities are explicitly described. |
| Overall knowledge score | 71.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Rich Roll Podcast
Assessment profile: Editorial or educational content, not clinical efficacy evidence.
Commercial-disclosure check only; no assessment of health claims, guests or products.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not assessed | Scientific content was not appraised in this disclosure-only scope. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | Not assessed | Episode-level citations were not appraised in this scope. |
| Methodological transparency | Not assessed | Research interpretation methods were not appraised in this scope. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Commercial sponsors, affiliate participation and a guest-payment statement are publicly described. |
| Balance & uncertainty | Not assessed | Evidential balance was not appraised in this scope. |
| Updating & corrections | Not assessed | A correction/update procedure was not established in the sampled pages. |
| Expertise & governance | 2 / 5 | Host and commercial production/contact responsibilities are identifiable. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
RTP Ensina / Rádio e Televisão de Portugal
Assessment profile: Editorial or educational content, not clinical efficacy evidence.
RTP Ensina publishing and sampled credited education material, not an efficacy assessment of SeguraNet.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 2 / 5 | The sampled material is credited educational media, not an evaluated clinical intervention. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | Authorship and production credits are visible; a full research bibliography was not assessed. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | Editorial guidance and content credits are available; episode-level validation is limited. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | Funding/conflict transparency was not sufficiently assessed from the selected pages. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 2 / 5 | Short educational formats provide limited space for evidential qualification. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | Production dates are given; a full correction history was not examined. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | RTP production and pedagogical authorship are credited. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Save the Children
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Accountability and Safe Schools monitoring/evaluation publishing, not every campaign or intervention.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Programme monitoring and research frameworks are publicly described. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | A named monitoring/evaluation toolkit and accountability documents are available. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | The toolkit distinguishes levels and uses of evidence collection. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Trustee reporting, governance and financial-statement routes are described. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The toolkit explicitly identifies evidence gaps and contextual questions. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Dated toolkits and recurring reports provide a publication trail. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Organisational governance and evaluation responsibilities are stated. |
| Overall knowledge score | 60.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
Shape the Sky
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
Existing KMF organisation identity; no numeric assessment is assigned without inspected official evidence.
Insufficient verified official material for a numerical assessment.
SSRN
Assessment profile: Hosting and screening practices; not peer-review certification.
SSRN hosting/screening policies; no endorsement or peer-review grade for the hosted preprint.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | Not applicable | Not applicable: hosting and integrity screening do not establish scientific merit or peer review. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | Persistent preprint identifiers support tracing to a specific version. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Research-integrity screening and rejection categories are described. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | Not assessed | Platform-level funding/conflict governance was not sufficiently assessed. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The platform explicitly distinguishes its screening from peer review. |
| Updating & corrections | 2 / 5 | The integrity policy is dated; a complete revision-performance review was not undertaken. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | A dedicated research-integrity team and screening responsibilities are described. |
| Overall knowledge score | Partial assessment | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
TED
Assessment profile: Editorial or educational content, not clinical efficacy evidence.
TED's stated publishing process and the role of curated talks; no blanket certification of speakers or TEDx events.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | Science standards require research support, but talks remain interpretive presentations. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | Speaker support and footnotes are expected; citation detail varies by talk. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Curators, fact-checkers and topic advisers are described in the content process. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Conference, partnership and philanthropic revenue sources are disclosed at a general level. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Guidelines require distinctions between established findings and speculation. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Correction, clarification and removal procedures are publicly described. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | Editorial responsibilities are described; speaker expertise still needs source-specific examination. |
| Overall knowledge score | 57.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report
Assessment profile: Research-informed advocacy; distinguish stated goals and program outcomes.
GEM Report publishing and the World Education Blog sample; not a score for every UNESCO publication.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | The programme has an evidence-and-analysis mandate; a blog entry remains interpretation. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 3 / 5 | Reports, monitoring material and sampled blog references are traceable. |
| Methodological transparency | 3 / 5 | Research, external evaluation and governance arrangements are described. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Funders and a public project funding record are identifiable. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | Editorial independence and evaluation are described; individual arguments still need checking. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Annual reporting and successive external evaluations supply an update trail. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The report team, host and advisory governance are identifiable. |
| Overall knowledge score | 60.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
UNICEF
Assessment profile: Institutional or public-interest explanation; not an endorsement of every recommendation.
Institutional evidence and transparency processes plus the sampled cyberbullying advice.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 3 / 5 | A public evaluation function supports institutional evidence use; the advice page is not a systematic review. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 2 / 5 | The sampled advice links practical resources but has less study-level citation detail. |
| Methodological transparency | 2 / 5 | Evaluation procedures are described, but the derivation of every advice statement is not demonstrated. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Public funding and transparency reporting is described; financial independence was not audited. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 3 / 5 | The evaluation framework asks what works, for whom and under which circumstances. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Public reports and maintained advice pages provide an update trail, not a complete corrections audit. |
| Expertise & governance | 3 / 5 | The evaluation office and organisational responsibilities are identified. |
| Overall knowledge score | 54.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date:
World Health Organization
Assessment profile: Institutional or public-interest explanation; not an endorsement of every recommendation.
WHO guideline-development processes and sampled public-health guidance; not every WHO publication.
Preliminary assessment
| Scientific grounding | 4 / 5 | Guideline standards and the sampled health guidance use an explicit evidence basis. |
|---|---|---|
| Citation traceability | 4 / 5 | The guideline handbook and topic pages provide traceable supporting material. |
| Methodological transparency | 4 / 5 | The handbook sets out evidence assessment and recommendation development. |
| Funding & conflict transparency | 3 / 5 | Guideline funding and conflict-management requirements are published; compliance was not audited. |
| Balance & uncertainty | 4 / 5 | The documented method addresses certainty, benefits, harms and contextual judgement. |
| Updating & corrections | 3 / 5 | Additional handbook chapters and dated topic guidance show updating; a full correction audit was not performed. |
| Expertise & governance | 4 / 5 | Guidelines Review Committee responsibilities and multidisciplinary expertise are specified. |
| Overall knowledge score | 74.0 / 100 | Overall scores require complete assessment of every applicable dimension. |
AI-assisted desk assessment of stated public policies and bounded samples; not an independent audit.
Assessment date: · Next review date: