Research method

Legislation is not science.

|∆| This site counts only primary research studies and systematic evidence-synthesis studies as Research. |∆| Non-study material may matter as legal, normative, implementation, or historical context, but it cannot supply research coverage, stance, or evidentiary weight.

Admission boundary

Admitted

Research studies

Empirical experiments and trials, observational studies, qualitative or mixed-methods studies, quasi-experiments, replications, and explicitly labeled formal or simulation studies may qualify when they report a research question, reproducible method, analysis, results, and limitations.

Admitted synthesis

Systematic evidence studies

Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, evidence maps, and meta-analyses may qualify when they declare search, selection, appraisal or mapping, and synthesis methods.

Excluded

Non-study context

Legislation, regulation, cases, treaties, policy, doctrine, ethics declarations, technical standards, practice guidelines, frameworks, advocacy reports, journalism, legal analysis, editorials, opinion, theory essays, narrative reviews, protocols without results, and AI summaries do not count as Research.

hmmm

Unclear record class

An unclear source stays out of Research until its full text establishes a qualifying method and result. Prestige, institutional authority, citation count, and peer review alone do not establish that it is a study.

Current migration audit

39 candidate sources were screened: 19 admitted studies and 20 non-study records excluded from Research.

18 study-only claim contacts remain from 37 candidates. 19 claims were removed from the Research surface because one or more cited records were not studies.

Verified full-text claim citations: 0. The retained legacy claims are visibly provisional until an exact page, table, figure, or Results-section locator and design-specific appraisal are recorded.

Claim and citation contract

Study result

What the study found

Record the design, sample or corpus, setting, method, result or effect, uncertainty, and limitations without turning association into causation.

Article contact

Why it bears on the text

State the bounded support, dissent, mixed result, or limit separately from the study's own result. The canonical unit remains independent and controlling.

Inference gap

What does not transfer

Identify population, setting, measurement, design, time, cultural, scale, and analogy boundaries. One study is provisional contact, not a broad conclusion.

Locator

Where the result appears

A verified claim needs a full-text page, table, figure, appendix, or Results-section locator. Abstract-only or indirect citation remains provisional and is shown as hmmm.

Review requirements

Identify the exact canonical unit and write the smallest study-linked claim.
Search in both supporting and challenging directions; document the query, databases, dates, screening rules, and result.
Record authors, year, venue, DOI or stable identifier, study design, evidence mode, population, setting, methods, outcomes, uncertainty, limitations, funding, conflicts, preregistration, data or code availability, and correction or retraction status when available.
Use a design-appropriate risk-of-bias appraisal with reasons. Do not replace it with one universal score.
Separate the study result, the Article relation, and the inference gap. Preserve contradictory qualifying studies.
Recheck corrections and retractions at admission and during scheduled review.
Do not require visual support/dissent symmetry. “No qualifying study found” is a valid result and must render as hmmm.

Article-level study gaps

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-one

Support: qualifying-study-found
Dissent: qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: qualifying-study-found

The current candidate ledger contains study contact in both directions; a comprehensive database search, independent duplicate screening, full-text locators, and design-specific risk-of-bias appraisals remain incomplete.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-two

Support: qualifying-study-found
Dissent: qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: qualifying-study-found

The current candidate ledger contains study contact in both directions; a comprehensive database search, independent duplicate screening, full-text locators, and design-specific risk-of-bias appraisals remain incomplete.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-three

Support: no-qualifying-study-found
Dissent: no-qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: qualifying-study-found

Only a non-empirical formal/simulation study currently qualifies. No qualifying support or dissent study is in the screened candidate ledger; a broader systematic search and empirical field evidence are needed.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-four

Support: qualifying-study-found
Dissent: no-qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: qualifying-study-found

No qualifying dissent study is in the screened candidate ledger. A broader search should test failure modes of legal education, teach-back, plain-language drafting, and comprehension-dependent enforcement.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-five

Support: no-qualifying-study-found
Dissent: qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: no-qualifying-study-found

No qualifying support study is in the screened candidate ledger. Studies directly evaluating competence portfolios, supported decision-making, task specificity, and age-based alternatives are needed.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-six

Support: no-qualifying-study-found
Dissent: qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: qualifying-study-found

No qualifying support study is in the screened candidate ledger. Direct evidence on bounded emergency authority, leader selection, group size, accountability, transfer, and demobilization is needed.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-seven

Support: no-qualifying-study-found
Dissent: qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: qualifying-study-found

No qualifying support study is in the screened candidate ledger. Research should compare negotiated, imposed, and standardized definitions across ordinary, technical, legal, and cross-cultural settings.

Screened 2026-07-31

candidate-ledger-screened-both-directions

rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-eight

Support: qualifying-study-found
Dissent: no-qualifying-study-found
Mixed or limit: no-qualifying-study-found

No qualifying dissent or limit study is in the screened candidate ledger. Research is needed on consent failure, collective harms, vulnerability, coercion, and competing definitions of harm.

Screened 2026-07-31

Usage guidance

Open the exact canonical unit first; research cards test bounded contact and never replace the source text.
Read the study result before the Article relation, then inspect the inference gap and locator.
Treat provisional-full-text-locator-needed as unfinished citation verification, not as a verified finding.
To add a source, append the candidate record, make one explicit source-admission decision, add or revise the bounded claim, record its claim review, update the Article gap, then run npm run check and npm run test:browser.

hmmm

The study-only boundary is enforced in code and tests. The current corpus is a screened legacy candidate set, not a comprehensive systematic review; exact full-text result locators, duplicate independent screening, design-specific risk-of-bias appraisals, funding and conflict extraction, and scheduled correction/retraction checks remain to be completed.