# Research dossier

Run `b0892f4e-ee2d-4218-9200-0d8fa423d4fb`.

Asked as:

```
Flat Earth
```

This document is a **method transcript, not a verdict**. It records what was
asked, where this run looked, what it read, how each passage bore on each
competing explanation, and what it could not settle — in that order, so a
reader can perform the adjudication instead of being handed one. Nothing
below asserts that the run's conclusions are correct.

### TL;DR — provisional read

This is a navigation aid, not a new synthesis. It restates the first three
asserted findings in the run's own synthesis order and points to their audit
trail in §§6–13; it does not rank them by the ordinal score matrix.

#### Current read

- `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` [inferred; computed confidence: unknown] Across the entire scored ledger, the only hypothesis with converging multi-source support is H5's positive claim that pre-existing psychological and sociological dispositions underlie flat-earth belief: epistemic/existential/social conspiracy motives and cognitive bias (ev_ee1ed9680f96_03, ev_ee1ed9680f96_04, ev_ee1ed9680f96_06, ev_ee1ed9680f96_11), distrust/powerlessness and marginalization (ev_ee1ed9680f96_05), low scientific reasoning plus conspiratorial mentality (ev_ee1ed9680f96_07), unfalsifiability as a sustaining feature (ev_ee1ed9680f96_08), religious dualism and biblical literalism (ev_ee1ed9680f96_10, ev_1dd2c566f23a_02, ev_1dd2c566f23a_04, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06), meaning-making (ev_ee1ed9680f96_12), and survey/attendee evidence that flat-earthers are far more religious than the general public (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05), score higher on conspiracy mentality than a national sample matched on religiosity and evolution belief (ev_1dd2c566f23a_03), and see themselves as unusually skeptical and logical (ev_1dd2c566f23a_05). All of this is cross-sectional and correlational, so it supports the existence of these drivers, not their causal priority over platform exposure. *Why that level:* 15 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 3 source(s) could not be traced to an origin.
- `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` [inferred; computed confidence: unknown] H5 stops holding in its strong form — platforms as 'mere distribution vector' — because the same ledger contains claims that platform content itself moves belief: reviewed work on YouTube visual and Twitter written flat-earth arguments is characterized as having 'a strong impact on belief' (ev_ee1ed9680f96_02), and YouTube's own policy statement singles out flat-earth claims as content its recommender was amplifying and would begin demoting (ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01, ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02). The tension inside the psychological literature is explicit: ev_ee1ed9680f96_13 argues social-media-behavior research must be supplemented by the psychological readiness that 'prepares the way' for adoption, i.e. it concedes platform research dominates but asserts, without testing, that disposition comes first. The defensible reading is a two-stage account (disposition selects who is recruitable, platforms determine who is reached), which neither H3 nor H5 as stated captures. *Why that level:* 4 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin.
- `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` [inferred; computed confidence: unknown] The decisive test between H3 and H5 — whether platform/algorithmic exposure predicts new belief formation after controlling for institutional distrust, epistemic style and identity factors — is not addressed by any evidence here. ev_ee1ed9680f96_02 asserts strong belief impact but reports no controls, randomization or longitudinal design, and ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01 and ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02 are corporate policy statements naming a mechanism, not measurements of belief change. Mechanism plausibility is therefore the highest causal criterion the platform side of the ledger reaches. *Why that level:* 3 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin.

#### In plain language

> People who doubt the Earth is round tend to distrust institutions and see conspiracies everywhere. Social media may spread these ideas, but it mostly reaches people already primed to believe them.

*Written by a language model from the findings below — the only prose in this
document a model composed. Measured reading grade: 9.5 (Flesch-Kincaid). This is above the eighth-grade level the note aims for; it is printed as written rather than withheld. It restates the findings; it is not evidence, nothing
cites it, and no stage of the research could read it.*

#### Evidence score

**8 findings asserted, unknown confidence — 14 / 100.**
0 independent origin(s) behind 8 asserted finding(s); 9 recorded stress attack(s). Components summed to 17; counter-evidence was found, which caps the unknown band.

Components: corroboration 0/40 · provenance 0/25 · falsification 17/20 · saturation 0/15.

**Numeric probability: not estimated.** The score above is a stated transform
of the counts printed beside it, bounded so it can never outrank the computed
confidence level it reports. It is not a probability: this run has no
calibrated priors or likelihood model, and the `++`, `+`, `0`, `-`, `--`
matrix is ordinal and cannot honestly be converted into a percentage. A reader
who rejects the weighting still has every count it was made from.

#### Strongest directly cited passages

Selected only from citations attached to the findings above: traced origin
first, then the evidence hierarchy in force at render time, then ledger order.
A higher publisher tier does not repair untraced provenance.

- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` — origin untraced; tier: peer reviewed; Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link: Social media has played a key role in the dissemination of misinformative and CTs (Paolillo, 2018) and has been particularly crucial to the propagation of FE theory. Visual arguments for FE on YouTube (Olshansky et al. 2020) and written arguments on Twitter (Melo et al. 2020) have been shown to have a strong impact on…
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` — origin untraced; tier: peer reviewed; Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link: From a psychological approach, Douglas et al. (2017) have identified three interrelated motives associated with conspiracy belief: epistemic (understanding one's environment), existential (having control over one's environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of oneself and the social group one is part of).
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` — origin untraced; tier: peer reviewed; Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link: The epistemic motive includes various cognitive biases identified as making people susceptible to CTs, such as illusory pattern perception (Van Prooijen et al., 2018) through higher-order processes in which people jointly construct an image of the world

#### What would change or overturn this read

These are the run's recorded stress conditions, not guarantees that one new
fact alone would settle the whole question. See §13 for every attack.
- `stp_2bf4bf907e31310f_00` [source_dependence] targeting `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` — The psychological and sociological profile relies heavily on a narrow set of overlapping review citations and small convenience samples from conference attendees, which may overstate the prevalence of conspiratorial mentality and religious literalism across the wider population of believers. **Recorded failure condition:** Representative psychometric sampling of broader flat-earth adherents indicates substantial segments whose belief is driven by social belonging or informational exposure rather than high baseline conspiracy mentality or religious literalism.
- `stp_8ea58e35b81abce9_01` [alternative_explanation] targeting `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` — Positing a two-stage model where pre-existing disposition selects recruitable individuals and platforms merely determine reach overlooks whether platform algorithmic exposure can independently generate conspiratorial thinking in previously unpredisposed users. **Recorded failure condition:** Longitudinal controlled studies show that sustained platform recommendation exposure induces flat-earth endorsement among individuals with baseline-normative scientific literacy and no prior conspiratorial ideation.
- `stp_ac677f7744e66811_02` [source_dependence] targeting `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` — Treating platform algorithmic impact as restricted to mechanism plausibility relies on the absence of public controlled studies, ignoring that internal corporate policy actions may have been predicated on proprietary empirical telemetry showing direct conversion dynamics. **Recorded failure condition:** Release of internal platform audit data confirms that recommender pathways directly accelerated conversion rates relative to matched unexposed search traffic.

## 1. Research Question

To what extent, and among which populations, has belief in a flat Earth (as opposed to a round/globe Earth) persisted or grown in the modern era, and what factors explain its persistence?

## 2. Scope

- **Population:** Adults and adolescents in the general public who express or hold views on the shape of the Earth, including self-identified 'Flat Earthers' and members of organized flat-earth movements/communities
- **Geography:** Not geographically bounded by default; where data exists, comparisons across countries (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Brazil) are of interest, since survey evidence on this topic is geographically uneven
- **Period:** Approximately 2015 to present, reflecting the resurgence of organized flat-earth advocacy associated with social media and platforms like YouTube, though historical antecedents (e.g., 19th-century flat-earth societies) may be referenced for context

### Out of scope

- The scientific validity or factual truth of flat-earth versus globe-earth claims
- Broader conspiracy theory belief in general, except where directly relevant to explaining flat-earth belief specifically
- Historical cosmological models predating the 19th-century flat-earth revival, except as brief context
- Astronomical or geodetic evidence for Earth's shape
- Legal, educational policy, or platform-moderation responses to flat-earth content

### Ambiguities the question recorded

- Whether 'Flat Earth' as input refers to the belief/movement itself, its portrayal in media, its psychological/sociological correlates, or its history "the topic is not specified beyond the two words"
- Whether the intended question concerns prevalence (how many believe it), causes (why people believe it), or cultural/social impact (how it manifests, e.g., in media or politics)
- Whether self-report surveys capture genuine belief, satire/trolling, or contrarian signaling, which could substantially change prevalence estimates

### Assumptions the question recorded

- Assumes the research interest is in the contemporary social/psychological phenomenon of flat-earth belief rather than the geometric or historical study of the concept itself
- Assumes survey and polling data (e.g., YouGov, Public Policy Polling) are acceptable proxies for measuring belief prevalence despite known limitations
- Assumes 'Flat Earth' does not refer to a metaphorical, literary, or fictional use of the term (e.g., novels, video games) unless explicitly reintroduced by a later stage

## 3. Definitions

- \'Flat Earth belief' means the assertion that the Earth is a flat plane rather than an oblate spheroid, as opposed to metaphorical or rhetorical use of the phrase
- \'Belief' is measured via self-report in surveys, polls, or documented public statements, not inferred from indirect behavior
- \'Persistence or growth' refers to measured or estimated prevalence, visibility, or organizational activity over time, not a claim about the belief's truth or scientific validity
- \'Modern flat-earth movement' refers to organized online/offline communities (e.g., Flat Earth Society, Flat Earth International Conference) distinct from historical antecedents

## 4. Methodology

### Evidence standard

The hierarchy below is **the one in force at render time**. It is a module
constant, not per-run state — no field on this run stores the ladder its
sources were ranked against — so this document can say which ordering is in
force as these words are written, and no more. Re-rendering an older run
after the constant changes would show that run the newer ladder.

| Rank | Tier | What qualifies |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | primary_data | Primary experimental or observational data: the dataset, trial record, or measurement itself, not a description of it. |
| 2 | systematic_review | A systematic review or meta-analysis that pools and appraises primary studies against a stated method. |
| 3 | peer_reviewed | A single peer-reviewed study, not yet pooled or independently replicated. |
| 4 | government_institutional | A government or institutional dataset or report published by the body that collected or regulates the data. |
| 5 | technical_report | A technical report describing methodology and results outside the peer-review process. |
| 6 | expert_analysis | Analysis by a named subject-matter expert, not independently reviewed. |
| 7 | quality_journalism | Reporting from a publication with a named byline, editorial process, and correction record. |
| 8 | industry_commentary | Commentary from an interested party writing about its own field. |
| 9 | anecdotal | A single first-hand account, not generalized beyond itself. |
| 10 | unsupported | Social media, or a claim with no stated basis at all. |

### How absence is written in this document

Three different absences look identical on a page. This document keeps them
apart deliberately, because a measured zero and an absent measurement are not
the same silence.

- *"... has not run"* appears only where a field distinguishes it: the
  question, the landscape, the search strategy, the falsification report and
  the stress test are each absent until their stage produces one.
- *"This run holds no ..."* appears for every collection. This is weaker on
  purpose: **an empty collection cannot say** whether the stage that would
  have filled it ever ran. One empty value stands for two different facts,
  and nothing in this run's state separates them. That is a defect of the
  state, stated once, here.
- *"This run does not record ..."* appears where there is no field at all — a
  fact this pipeline never captured, rather than one it captured as empty.

### Searches

| Query | Kind | Site | Compiled from |
|---|---|---|---|
| flat Earth belief persistence and growth among modern populations | anchor | — | Flat Earth belief |
| Flat Earthism prevalence survey data | synonym_expansion | — | Flat Earth belief (also written: Flat Earthism), Prevalence survey/polling data |
| Flat Earth community subculture ethnographic study | synonym_expansion | — | Modern Flat Earth movement (also written: Flat Earth community; Flat Earth subculture) |
| conspiracist ideation and epistemic mistrust correlates of flat Earth belief | synonym_expansion | — | Conspiracy belief (also written: conspiracist ideation), Epistemic mistrust (also written: institutional distrust; distrust of experts) |
| YouTube algorithmic recommendation fringe content radicalization flat Earth | synonym_expansion | — | Misinformation/disinformation (also written: YouTube radicalization; algorithmic recommendation of fringe content) |
| flat Earth belief survey polling report | site_scoped | yougov.com | YouGov |
| flat Earth belief poll results | site_scoped | publicpolicypolling.com | Public Policy Polling (PPP) |
| public understanding of science and belief in flat Earth | site_scoped | pewresearch.org | Pew Research Center |
| systematic review meta-analysis conspiracy belief prevalence flat Earth | review_hunt | — | systematic reviews or meta-analyses of conspiracy belief prevalence |
| longitudinal trend study flat Earth belief prevalence 2015 to present | review_hunt | — | longitudinal or trend studies tracking belief prevalence over time (2015\\u2013present) |

### Subquestions

- `SQ1` — What survey and polling data exist (e.g., YouGov, Public Policy Polling) measuring self-reported flat-earth belief prevalence in the general public since 2015, and what do they show about overall prevalence?
- `SQ2` — How does self-reported flat-earth belief prevalence vary across demographic subgroups (e.g., age, education, religion, political affiliation, income) within available survey data?
- `SQ3` — How does measured or estimated flat-earth belief prevalence vary across countries where data exists (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Brazil), and what explains any cross-national differences?
- `SQ4` — What evidence exists on trends over time (2015–present) in flat-earth belief prevalence, visibility, or organizational activity, indicating growth, decline, or stability?
- `SQ5` — What is known about the size, structure, and activity of organized modern flat-earth communities and events (e.g., Flat Earth Society, Flat Earth International Conference) since 2015?
- `SQ6` — What role have social media and video platforms (e.g., YouTube) played in the visibility, spread, and organization of flat-earth belief and communities?
- `SQ7` — What psychological factors (e.g., distrust in institutions, epistemic style, need for uniqueness, cognitive biases) have been proposed or studied as explanations for individuals holding or expressing flat-earth belief?
- `SQ8` — What sociological or cultural factors (e.g., community belonging, identity signaling, religious or ideological affiliations, distrust of scientific authority) have been proposed or studied as explanations for the persistence of flat-earth belief?
- `SQ9` — What alternative explanations or interpretations exist for self-reported flat-earth belief in surveys, such as trolling, satire, contrarian signaling, or survey response error, and how might these affect prevalence estimates?
- `SQ10` — Where do researchers or data sources disagree about the extent, growth, or causes of flat-earth belief, and what disconfirming evidence exists against claims of significant persistence or growth?
- `SQ11` — What are the documented historical antecedents (e.g., 19th-century flat-earth societies) that provide context for understanding the modern flat-earth movement, without extending analysis to pre-19th-century cosmology?
- `SQ12` — What gaps, limitations, or unknowns remain in current data and research regarding the true prevalence, demographic distribution, and causal explanations of flat-earth belief?

### Retrieval rounds

- Round 1, the initial retrieval: 6 snapshot(s).
- Round 2, the falsification counter-search: 9 snapshot(s).

## 5. Current State of Knowledge

**This is not what the field believes.** It is where this run looked,
decided **before any source was read** — vocabulary to search with, places
to search in, and the kinds of review to hunt for. It contains no claim about
the world, and **no source backs any of it**. Nothing downstream reads it as
a claim either, so the worst a bad map can do is search badly.

### Terminology searched

- `Flat Earth belief` — also written `Flat Earthism`, `Flat Earth theory`, `flat-earth ideology`, `belief in a flat Earth`
- `Modern Flat Earth movement` — also written `Flat Earth community`, `Flat Earth revival`, `contemporary Flat Earth movement`, `Flat Earth subculture`
- `Conspiracy belief` — also written `conspiracist ideation`, `conspiracy theory endorsement`, `conspiratorial thinking`
- `Science denial` — also written `science skepticism`, `denialism`, `rejection of scientific consensus`, `anti-science attitudes`
- `Epistemic mistrust` — also written `institutional distrust`, `distrust of experts`, `epistemic cynicism`
- `Misinformation/disinformation` — also written `online misinformation`, `conspiracy content`, `YouTube radicalization`, `algorithmic recommendation of fringe content`
- `Prevalence survey/polling data` — also written `public opinion polling`, `belief prevalence estimates`, `survey-based belief measurement`
- `Motivated reasoning` — also written `identity-protective cognition`, `confirmation bias in belief formation`
- `Fringe science/pseudoscience` — also written `pseudoscientific belief`, `alternative science community`
- `Online community formation` — also written `digital subculture`, `networked belief community`, `echo chamber effect`

### Institutions named as places to look

- YouGov
- Public Policy Polling (PPP)
- Pew Research Center
- Flat Earth Society
- Flat Earth International Conference (FEIC)
- Center for Countering Digital Hate
- Data & Society Research Institute
- Oxford Internet Institute
- Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
- University research centers studying conspiracy psychology (e.g., psychology departments with conspiracy-belief labs)

### Venues named as places to look

- Public Understanding of Science
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Social Media + Society
- New Media & Society
- Journal of Communication
- Skeptical Inquirer
- PLOS ONE
- Political Psychology
- American Behavioral Scientist
- Nature Human Behaviour

### Kinds of review hunted for

- systematic reviews or meta-analyses of conspiracy belief prevalence
- survey/polling reports on flat-earth or Earth-shape belief prevalence by country
- academic literature reviews on online radicalization via YouTube recommendation algorithms
- sociological or ethnographic studies of Flat Earth community membership and events
- psychological studies on correlates of conspiracy ideation (distrust, education, religiosity)
- media analyses or content studies of flat-earth discourse on social platforms
- institutional reports on science literacy and public understanding of astronomy/geodesy
- longitudinal or trend studies tracking belief prevalence over time (2015–present)

## 6. Key Findings

Findings this run could not settle are not here; they are open questions, and
§14 holds them.

### Findings that cite evidence

- `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` [inferred] Across the entire scored ledger, the only hypothesis with converging multi-source support is H5's positive claim that pre-existing psychological and sociological dispositions underlie flat-earth belief: epistemic/existential/social conspiracy motives and cognitive bias (ev_ee1ed9680f96_03, ev_ee1ed9680f96_04, ev_ee1ed9680f96_06, ev_ee1ed9680f96_11), distrust/powerlessness and marginalization (ev_ee1ed9680f96_05), low scientific reasoning plus conspiratorial mentality (ev_ee1ed9680f96_07), unfalsifiability as a sustaining feature (ev_ee1ed9680f96_08), religious dualism and biblical literalism (ev_ee1ed9680f96_10, ev_1dd2c566f23a_02, ev_1dd2c566f23a_04, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06), meaning-making (ev_ee1ed9680f96_12), and survey/attendee evidence that flat-earthers are far more religious than the general public (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05), score higher on conspiracy mentality than a national sample matched on religiosity and evolution belief (ev_1dd2c566f23a_03), and see themselves as unusually skeptical and logical (ev_1dd2c566f23a_05). All of this is cross-sectional and correlational, so it supports the existence of these drivers, not their causal priority over platform exposure. Cites `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06`.
- `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` [inferred] H5 stops holding in its strong form — platforms as 'mere distribution vector' — because the same ledger contains claims that platform content itself moves belief: reviewed work on YouTube visual and Twitter written flat-earth arguments is characterized as having 'a strong impact on belief' (ev_ee1ed9680f96_02), and YouTube's own policy statement singles out flat-earth claims as content its recommender was amplifying and would begin demoting (ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01, ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02). The tension inside the psychological literature is explicit: ev_ee1ed9680f96_13 argues social-media-behavior research must be supplemented by the psychological readiness that 'prepares the way' for adoption, i.e. it concedes platform research dominates but asserts, without testing, that disposition comes first. The defensible reading is a two-stage account (disposition selects who is recruitable, platforms determine who is reached), which neither H3 nor H5 as stated captures. Cites `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02`.
- `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` [inferred] The decisive test between H3 and H5 — whether platform/algorithmic exposure predicts new belief formation after controlling for institutional distrust, epistemic style and identity factors — is not addressed by any evidence here. ev_ee1ed9680f96_02 asserts strong belief impact but reports no controls, randomization or longitudinal design, and ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01 and ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02 are corporate policy statements naming a mechanism, not measurements of belief change. Mechanism plausibility is therefore the highest causal criterion the platform side of the ledger reaches. Cites `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02`.
- `fnd_d0bc592e54a07115_03` [observed] On magnitude alone, H1's 1-3% band is corroborated by two independent national polls under firmness-demanding wording: 2% of Americans 'resolutely' say the Earth is flat (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01) and 3% of Britons say it is probably or definitely true with 93% rejecting it (ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01, ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02). Cites `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01`, `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01`, `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02`.
- `fnd_358185cc28a344e2_05` [inferred] The apparent conflict between the ~2-3% figures and the nationwide ~10% figure (ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03) is explained by measurement construction rather than by real disagreement about flat-earth prevalence: the 10% is a composite over agreement with any of three distinct claims (flat Earth, faked Moon landings, vaccine microchips), while the low figures isolate flat-Earth and require firm endorsement ('resolutely', 'probably or definitely true') (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01, ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01). The same graded structure appears within one poll: 2% flat, 5% former round-Earth believers who now have doubts, 84% round overall and only 66% of millennials firmly round (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04). Headline numbers therefore index how much firmness and how much item-aggregation the instrument permits, which is the mechanism H2 posits without being evidence of insincerity. Cites `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04`, `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01`, `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03`.
- `fnd_42a14fce1fea89ce_06` [inferred] H2's specific claim — that trolling and contrarian responding inflate poll figures such that sincere prevalence is under 1% — receives no direct test in this ledger; the countervailing signals are only indirect, namely a costly-signal sample recruited in person at the first Flat Earth International Conference (ev_1dd2c566f23a_01), roughly 600 attendees at the third such conference plus conventions in Brazil, Britain and Italy (ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02), and flat-earthers' self-description as more skeptical and logical than a national sample (ev_1dd2c566f23a_05). These establish that a sincere, self-identifying core exists but cannot bound what fraction of the 2-3% poll respondents it constitutes. Cites `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05`, `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02`.
- `fnd_cd5926810e30a467_07` [inferred] H3's growth claim is supported only for organized activity, and only weakly: the ledger shows a conference series reaching a third annual instalment with about 600 attendees and international spread (ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02) and a first-conference attendee sample of just n=23 (ev_1dd2c566f23a_01), which is suggestive of expansion but is not a comparable attendance series. No evidence links any of this to algorithmic recommendation, and nothing measures activity or prevalence after YouTube's announced demotion of flat-earth recommendations (ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01), which is exactly the interruption H3's falsifier requires. Cites `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01`, `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`.
- `fnd_eb50922bda97dfc8_08` [inferred] The age gradient — 4% flat-earth belief among 18-24s, the highest of any group, and only 66% of millennials firmly round-Earth (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04) — is equally predicted by H3 (young cohorts are heaviest recommender-fed platform users) and by H5 (youth co-varies with life-stage uncertainty, powerlessness and lower accumulated science knowledge, per ev_ee1ed9680f96_05 and ev_ee1ed9680f96_07). It is therefore non-diagnostic and should not be read as platform evidence. Cites `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07`.

### Hypothesized

A hypothesized finding is a candidate reading this run wrote down. The run
**did not establish it**. It may still name passages — the contract requires
evidence of the two statuses above and forbids it to the one below, and asks
nothing of this one — so a citation here shows what suggested the reading, not
what settled it. The group is kept apart for that reason: listed beside an
observed finding, a candidate reads as a conclusion the run reached.

- `fnd_b156647cfd1b7878_10` [hypothesized] A plausible reconciliation the ledger cannot yet adjudicate: firm flat-earth endorsement is dispositionally gated and near-constant at low single digits, while the far larger soft-doubt margin (the 5% ex-round-Earth doubters and the ~18-point gap between 84% round overall and 66% firmly-round millennials) is the elastic component that platform exposure and media coverage actually move — which would make H1 and H3/H4 true of different quantities rather than rivals.

## 7. Evidence

Excerpts are printed verbatim, inside a fence: this document writes the
stored bytes and does not edit them. Two differences belong to the format
rather than to the passage, and both show up only when a passage is read
back out of this page. A fenced block terminates each of its own lines, so
an excerpt that did not end in a newline gains one. And a markdown parser
normalises as it reads: a carriage return comes back as a newline, and a
null byte comes back as U+FFFD, because the format requires both. A digest
recomputed over text copied out of this page can therefore differ from the
snapshot digest printed beside it for those reasons alone — that digest is
the one taken over the stored bytes, and it remains the thing to check a
passage against.

### Passages weighed against every live explanation

#### `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02`

- Answers subquestion `SQ1`.
- Read from `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Located at: `Section labeled 'LIVE SURVEY RESULTS'`

```
an overwhelming majority of Americans (84%) believe that the Earth is round, at least 5% of the public say they used to believe that but now have their doubts
```

#### `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03`

- Answers subquestion `SQ2`.
- Read from `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Located at: `Paragraph beginning 'Flat earthers find traction'`

```
Young millennials, ages 18 to 24, are likelier than any other age group to say they believe the Earth is flat (4%)
```

#### `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04`

- Answers subquestion `SQ2`.
- Read from `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Located at: `Subtitle near beginning of article`

```
Just 66% of millennials firmly believe that the earth is round
```

#### `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Located at: `Paragraph beginning 'Data from YouGov Profiles'`

```
more than half of Flat earthers (52%) consider themselves "very religious," compared to just a fifth of all Americans (20%)
```

#### `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Located at: `Paragraph beginning 'Data from YouGov Profiles'`

```
For some flat earthers, evidence of the earth's shape may be found in scripture
```

#### `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01`

- Answers subquestion `SQ1`.
- Read from `src_e10c501b3acd254af2959a60` — Which science-based conspiracy theories do Britons believe?
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/22839-which-science-based-conspiracy-theories-do-britons`
- Snapshot digest: `93418c4bd61dc61ab2ca5b2e7ac5bcb6025b6ed5f422d877a99c1416d5383787`
- Located at: `Section: 'The Earth is flat'; YouGov RealTime survey, April 2019`

```
The theory that the Earth is flat rather than round was the least popular on the survey: just 3% of Britons say it's 'probably' or 'definitely' true. Just over nine out of ten (93%) believe it's false, while 4% claim that they don't know.
```

#### `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02`

- Answers subquestion `SQ4`.
- Read from `src_e10c501b3acd254af2959a60` — Which science-based conspiracy theories do Britons believe?
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/22839-which-science-based-conspiracy-theories-do-britons`
- Snapshot digest: `93418c4bd61dc61ab2ca5b2e7ac5bcb6025b6ed5f422d877a99c1416d5383787`
- Located at: `Opening paragraph; published 25 April 2019`

```
A YouGov RealTime survey for the Yahoo / YouGov podcast 'Britain Is A Nation Of' asked Britons about everything from climate change to creationism.
```

#### `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03`

- Answers subquestion `SQ1`.
- Read from `src_f528161cdb2649fda9feb0f2` — Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs
- URL: `https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs`
- Snapshot digest: `e636833d6b7880940684ba44f706529bb94797ec0885f90b12377ec7dfe6ffe7`
- Located at: `Key Findings section`

```
On a nationwide U.S. survey, around 10 percent of respondents agreed with conspiracy claims that the Earth is flat, NASA faked the Moon landings, or COVID-19 vaccinations implant tracking microchips.
```

#### `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`

- Answers subquestion `SQ4`.
- Read from `src_5fdbaa5cd376c96ceeb9ce73` — Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube   - YouTube Blog
- URL: `https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/continuing-our-work-to-improve/`
- Snapshot digest: `ec438c60b54a091a715eb592bb5d75080f65ae3a69ec9c0477b02049295e2797`
- Located at: `January 25, 2019 YouTube Blog post 'Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube', paragraph beginning 'We'll continue that work this year...'`

```
To that end, we'll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.
```

#### `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02`

- Answers subquestion `SQ6`.
- Read from `src_5fdbaa5cd376c96ceeb9ce73` — Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube   - YouTube Blog
- URL: `https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/continuing-our-work-to-improve/`
- Snapshot digest: `ec438c60b54a091a715eb592bb5d75080f65ae3a69ec9c0477b02049295e2797`
- Located at: `January 25, 2019 YouTube Blog post 'Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube', paragraph beginning 'While this shift will apply...'`

```
While this shift will apply to less than one percent of the content on YouTube, we believe that limiting the recommendation of these types of videos will mean a better experience for the YouTube community. To be clear, this will only affect recommendations of what videos to watch, not whether a video is available on YouTube.
```

#### `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02`

- Answers subquestion `SQ5`.
- Read from `src_16849fb42978f61a12cf17fc` — The flat-Earth conspiracy is spreading around the globe. Does it hide a darker core? | CNN
- URL: `https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/us/flat-earth-conference-conspiracy-theories-scli-intl`
- Snapshot digest: `afcfe29532e396ed412346e62f039a9fcb02cb82064df3cee20558a5bee0bcc2`
- Located at: `Main article body, early section on conference attendance`

```
This week, the businessman attended the third annual Flat Earth International Conference, held at an Embassy Suites hotel in suburban Dallas, Texas. Organizers told CNN that about 600 others went too. Previous conferences have taken place in Raleigh and Denver – while Brazil, Britain and Italy have also held flat-Earth conventions in recent years.
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02`

- Answers subquestion `SQ6`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
Social media has played a key role in the dissemination of misinformative and CTs (Paolillo, 2018) and has been particularly crucial to the propagation of FE theory. Visual arguments for FE on YouTube (Olshansky et al. 2020) and written arguments on Twitter (Melo et al. 2020) have been shown to have a strong impact on belief
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
From a psychological approach, Douglas et al. (2017) have identified three interrelated motives associated with conspiracy belief: epistemic (understanding one's environment), existential (having control over one's environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of oneself and the social group one is part of).
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
The epistemic motive includes various cognitive biases identified as making people susceptible to CTs, such as illusory pattern perception (Van Prooijen et al., 2018) through higher-order processes in which people jointly construct an image of the world
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
The existential motive highlights the fact that belief in CTs is highest in situations of unpredictability and uncertainty, and where people feel powerless and lack trust in authorities (Douglas et al., 2019). Existential threat triggers sensory processes and a search for explanations, a void CTs step into. CT belief is consistently much higher among marginalized groups, living under conditions of threat, distrust, and powerlessness (Hornsey, 2020).
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
the social motive points to how marginalized groups and individuals can become important actors as champions of the truth in a world where everyone has been lied to. Imhoff & Lamberty (2017) suggest that CT belief can be understood as a means of achieving a sense of uniqueness.
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
Landrum et al. (2021) suggest that low scientific knowledge and high conspiratorial mentality are key factors in susceptibility to FE arguments online. Similarly, Georgiou et al. (2022) found that higher levels of scientific reasoning and belief flexibility were negatively associated with CT beliefs.
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
CTs are easy to put forward, but difficult to disprove (Goertzel, 2010).
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Society and Religion in Conspiracy Theories' subsection`

```
the dualistic notion of good and evil that is key to the Judeo-Christian tradition (and can be traced back to Zoroastrianism), also figures centrally in FE Theory. In both, the good forces will often fight the evil forces to restore order (Dyrendal et al., 2018; Oliver & Wood, 2014).
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Society and Religion in Conspiracy Theories' subsection`

```
they are both rooted in the need for a framework that can overcome challenges that scientific explanations, for example, are unable to address (Robertson et al., 2018). This includes providing the comfort of knowing that tragic events occur for a reason (Keeley, 1999)—that is, the notion of theodicy (Dyrendal et al., 2018). Furthermore, CT and religious belief both strengthen in times of uncertainty, as a form of compensatory control which substitutes a perceived lack of personal control for an external source of control (Douglas et al., 2017).
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Abstract`

```
flat earth theory offers people a comprehensive vision that places human beings at the center of the universe and provides arguments for how life is meaningful.
```

#### `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13`

- Answers subquestion `SQ12`.
- Read from `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link
- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Located at: `Introduction section, 'Flat Earth Belief as a Conspiracy Theory' subsection`

```
While much research has addressed FE theory by looking at how social media behaviors influence conspiracy theorists, it is also essential to examine the psychological processes that prepare the way for its adoption in the first place.
```

#### `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01`

- Answers subquestion `SQ5`.
- Read from `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` — Conspiracy theorizing and religious motivated reasoning: Why the earth ‘must’ be flat
- URL: `https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/29e0c519-6e13-46ef-945d-756cb3a2cc40`
- Snapshot digest: `1dd2c566f23a096b16926c5853fba58fed22a033ab04ec7e3455dfb4bd1e68f1`
- Located at: `Abstract, results section`

```
one recruited from a national online marketing panel (N = 513) and a sample of participants recruited from the first annual Flat Earth International Conference (n = 23)
```

#### `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` — Conspiracy theorizing and religious motivated reasoning: Why the earth ‘must’ be flat
- URL: `https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/29e0c519-6e13-46ef-945d-756cb3a2cc40`
- Snapshot digest: `1dd2c566f23a096b16926c5853fba58fed22a033ab04ec7e3455dfb4bd1e68f1`
- Located at: `Abstract`

```
To what extent, then, is accepting a flat Earth (and rejecting a spherical one) an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance in the minds of flat-Earthers emerging from conflict between scientific consensus on the shape of the Earth and literalist interpretations of the Bible, and to what extent is this belief driven by extreme distrust of information provided by government institutions?
```

#### `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` — Conspiracy theorizing and religious motivated reasoning: Why the earth ‘must’ be flat
- URL: `https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/29e0c519-6e13-46ef-945d-756cb3a2cc40`
- Snapshot digest: `1dd2c566f23a096b16926c5853fba58fed22a033ab04ec7e3455dfb4bd1e68f1`
- Located at: `Abstract, results section`

```
Results showed no significant difference in religiosity and belief in evolution between the two samples; however, the Flat Earth sample was significantly higher in conspiracy mentality.
```

#### `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04`

- Answers subquestion `SQ8`.
- Read from `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` — Conspiracy theorizing and religious motivated reasoning: Why the earth ‘must’ be flat
- URL: `https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/29e0c519-6e13-46ef-945d-756cb3a2cc40`
- Snapshot digest: `1dd2c566f23a096b16926c5853fba58fed22a033ab04ec7e3455dfb4bd1e68f1`
- Located at: `Abstract`

```
Biblical literalism and conspiracy ideation predict belief that the Earth is flat
```

#### `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05`

- Answers subquestion `SQ7`.
- Read from `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` — Conspiracy theorizing and religious motivated reasoning: Why the earth ‘must’ be flat
- URL: `https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/29e0c519-6e13-46ef-945d-756cb3a2cc40`
- Snapshot digest: `1dd2c566f23a096b16926c5853fba58fed22a033ab04ec7e3455dfb4bd1e68f1`
- Located at: `Abstract, results section`

```
Results here also indicate that Flat-Earthers consider themselves significantly more skeptical and logical than the national sample.
```

#### `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01`

- Answers subquestion `SQ1`.
- Read from `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious
- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Located at: `Main body paragraph beginning 'Those who believe the Earth is flat'`

```
2% of Americans resolutely say the earth is flat
```

### Passages nothing has scored

These passed the verbatim gate, and nothing has compared them to the live
explanations. No finding in this document rests on one.

*This run holds no unscored passages.*

## 8. Competing Explanations

The roster in its own order, with the five bearing counts each explanation
collected. The counts are unweighted by evidence tier on purpose: no weight
vector has been argued anywhere in this system, and an invented one would let
a genre label quietly outvote the passages themselves. No condition below
carries a probability either — a narrated number moves the argument onto the
number and away from the condition nobody can support.

| Explanation | ++ | + | 0 | - | -- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `H1` | 0 | 2 | 24 | 2 | 0 |
| `H2` | 0 | 1 | 25 | 2 | 0 |
| `H3` | 0 | 8 | 19 | 1 | 0 |
| `H4` | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0 |
| `H5` | 0 | 16 | 9 | 3 | 0 |

### `H1` — A small but genuinely sincere minority of the adult population (roughly 1-3% depending on country) holds flat-earth belief, and this level has remained roughly stable since 2015 rather than growing.

- Falsified by: Time-series survey data using consistent methodology showing statistically significant upward or downward trend in sincere self-reported flat-earth belief across multiple independent polls (e.g., YouGov repeated waves) between 2015 and present.
- Disconfirming evidence would be observable at: Archived YouGov, Public Policy Polling, and academic survey datasets 2015-present; peer-reviewed re-analyses of trend data
- Required conditions — **all of these must hold**, and the weakest is where
  the argument actually breaks:
  1. Multiple comparable surveys exist across the period with consistent question wording
  2. Respondents' answers reflect genuine belief rather than trolling
  3. Sample sizes are large enough to detect trend changes
- Passages declaring a bearing on it: 28.

### `H2` — Reported flat-earth belief in surveys is substantially inflated by trolling, satire, and contrarian/insincere responding, such that true sincere prevalence is much lower than headline poll numbers suggest (potentially under 1%).

- Falsified by: Studies using validated insincere-response detection methods (e.g., attention checks, follow-up interviews, behavioral corroboration) that find self-reported flat-earth belief rates closely match rates obtained through methods designed to filter out trolling.
- Disconfirming evidence would be observable at: Academic survey methodology papers using attention-check or mixed-methods designs on flat-earth belief items; qualitative interview studies with self-identified flat-earthers
- Required conditions — **all of these must hold**, and the weakest is where
  the argument actually breaks:
  1. Some meaningful share of survey respondents are answering insincerely
  2. Insincere responding is not evenly distributed across demographic subgroups in a way that would preserve headline estimates
  3. Researchers have applied or could apply methods to distinguish sincere from insincere responses
- Passages declaring a bearing on it: 28.

### `H3` — Flat-earth belief and organized community activity have genuinely grown since 2015, driven causally by social media/video platform (especially YouTube) recommendation algorithms and content ecosystems that recruit and radicalize new adherents.

- Falsified by: Evidence that flat-earth organizational membership, event attendance (e.g., Flat Earth International Conference), and prevalence estimates have plateaued or declined despite continued or increased social media activity, or that platform algorithm changes reducing recommendation of flat-earth content did not correspond to measurable declines in belief/activity.
- Disconfirming evidence would be observable at: Flat Earth Society/FEIC attendance and membership records; academic studies of YouTube recommendation pathways and radicalization (e.g., Munger & Phillips-type analyses); post-algorithm-change trend data
- Required conditions — **all of these must hold**, and the weakest is where
  the argument actually breaks:
  1. Documented growth in community size/event attendance/prevalence over the period
  2. A demonstrable causal (not merely correlational) link between platform exposure and belief adoption
  3. Platform-level data or independent research on recommendation pathways is available
- Passages declaring a bearing on it: 28.

### `H4` — Apparent growth in flat-earth belief since 2015 is largely an artifact of increased media coverage and improved/novel measurement (surveys asking about it for the first time), rather than a genuine increase in underlying prevalence, which existed at similar low levels before but was simply unmeasured and unreported.

- Falsified by: Evidence of pre-2015 survey or documentary data showing comparable prevalence of flat-earth belief when equivalent measurement existed, or evidence that increases in belief prevalence occurred independently of, or prior to, spikes in media coverage.
- Disconfirming evidence would be observable at: Historical Flat Earth Society membership records predating 2015; retrospective sociological accounts; earlier (pre-2015) opinion poll archives if any exist
- Required conditions — **all of these must hold**, and the weakest is where
  the argument actually breaks:
  1. Pre-2015 baseline measurement is sparse or nonexistent, making direct comparison difficult
  2. Media coverage intensity can be tracked and correlated with survey timing
  3. Retrospective or historical accounts allow rough prevalence estimation before 2015
- Passages declaring a bearing on it: 28.

### `H5` — The persistence of flat-earth belief is driven primarily by underlying psychological and sociological factors (distrust in institutions, need for uniqueness, community/identity belonging, religious/ideological affiliation) that predate and are independent of social media, with platforms serving only as a distribution vector rather than a root cause.

- Falsified by: Experimental or longitudinal evidence showing that algorithmic/platform exposure independently predicts new belief formation even after statistically controlling for institutional distrust, epistemic style, and social/identity factors, indicating platforms are a substantial independent causal driver rather than a mere vector.
- Disconfirming evidence would be observable at: Peer-reviewed psychology/sociology studies on conspiracy belief correlates including flat-earth-specific samples; longitudinal panel studies tracking belief change alongside platform use and psychological trait measures
- Required conditions — **all of these must hold**, and the weakest is where
  the argument actually breaks:
  1. Psychological/sociological correlates of flat-earth belief have been measured in study samples
  2. Studies exist that can separate platform-exposure effects from pre-existing psychological predispositions
  3. Longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs are available for this population
- Passages declaring a bearing on it: 28.

### Explanations a count cannot settle

An explanation whose disconfirming evidence has nowhere it could be seen can
never lose, and therefore can never win: every empty search is absorbed as
further concealment. Its counts are printed above because the evidence really
was weighed against it and hiding the column would conceal that — but a count
**cannot settle** an explanation nothing could disconfirm, and the shape of
the claim is the finding here, not the number.

*This run holds no self-sealing explanations.*

## 9. Contradictory Evidence

### Adversarial searches

#### `8146c396a31a67267413b490` against `H1`

- Searched: time series trends flat earth belief surveys YouGov Pew 2015 2024
- Looked for: Survey waves tracking flat earth belief across multiple years showing significant growth or decline over time.
- Result: returned `src_e10c501b3acd254af2959a60`.

#### `10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd` against `H1`

- Searched: percentage of people who believe the earth is flat survey trends over time longitudinal
- Looked for: Longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional polling data demonstrating changing prevalence rates.
- Result: returned `src_f528161cdb2649fda9feb0f2`.

#### `a692429a9a929b0addffaf0f` against `H2`

- Searched: flat earth survey trolling lizardmans constant insincere responses attention checks
- Looked for: Empirical studies evaluating survey error, trolling, and insincere responding in flat earth polling.
- Result: returned nothing; that is a result, not a blank. The search ran and came back empty.

#### `d1316ba9f68d64942a830284` against `H2`

- Searched: sincere flat earth belief survey verification interviews behavioral validation
- Looked for: Research testing whether flat earth poll respondents sincerely hold the belief using validated interview or behavioral methods.
- Result: returned nothing; that is a result, not a blank. The search ran and came back empty.

#### `5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738` against `H3`

- Searched: YouTube recommendation algorithm flat earth belief decline 2019 algorithm change impact
- Looked for: Studies on the effect of YouTube's 2019 algorithmic changes on flat earth content consumption and belief trends.
- Result: returned `src_5fdbaa5cd376c96ceeb9ce73`.

#### `21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7` against `H3`

- Searched: flat earth international conference attendance membership numbers trend decline
- Looked for: Data showing declining or stagnant flat earth organizational membership and conference attendance despite social media reach.
- Result: returned `src_16849fb42978f61a12cf17fc`.

#### `f0cbd3a3e906ae99814acd21` against `H4`

- Searched: pre-2015 survey flat earth belief polling history historical prevalence
- Looked for: Historical polls or surveys measuring flat earth belief prior to 2015.
- Result: returned nothing; that is a result, not a blank. The search ran and came back empty.

#### `8908923baeaedbb4e375972a` against `H4`

- Searched: flat earth belief Google trends media coverage vs belief prevalence lead lag
- Looked for: Analysis of whether belief prevalence growth preceded media coverage rather than being an artifact of it.
- Result: returned nothing; that is a result, not a blank. The search ran and came back empty.

#### `4b36bc3afe3bcc0fc361a333` against `H5`

- Searched: experimental exposure flat earth video belief formation causal algorithm
- Looked for: Experimental evidence demonstrating that algorithmic exposure causally induces flat earth belief in individuals without pre-existing conspiratorial ideation.
- Result: returned nothing; that is a result, not a blank. The search ran and came back empty.

### Passages bearing against an explanation

| Passage | Explanation | Bearing | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | `H1` | - | The 5% who say they now doubt round-earth suggests some recent shift rather than a flat, stable 1-3% baseline since 2015. |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | `H1` | - | A combined ~10% figure for multiple conspiracy claims is much higher than the 1-3% sincere flat-earth estimate H1 proposes, though it conflates distinct beliefs. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | `H5` | - | By singling out its own recommendation system as a driver needing correction, this weakens the claim that platforms are merely a neutral distribution vector rather than an active causal amplifier. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | `H5` | - | YouTube's own action to curb recommendations suggests the platform was seen as an active amplifying mechanism, cutting against the 'mere vector' framing but not decisive since it's a corporate statement, not causal evidence. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | `H5` | - | Cited studies claim platforms have a 'strong impact on belief', suggesting more than a mere distribution vector, weakening the vector-only claim. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | `H3` | - | Implies social media influence alone is insufficient explanation, calling for prior psychological readiness rather than platform-driven growth. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | `H2` | - | Flat-Earthers' self-identification as logical/skeptical suggests sincere identity-based belief rather than trolling, weakly undercutting the insincerity hypothesis. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | `H2` | - | The word 'resolutely' suggests the poll attempted to capture sincere conviction rather than trolling, weakly undercutting the inflation hypothesis. |

### Pre-registered probes

*This run does not record any pre-registered probe.*

A probe states, before a search runs, what should be findable and where.
Only a search like that turns an empty result into evidence of absence;
without one, nothing distinguishes a thing that is not there from a place
nobody looked. No probe was pre-registered in this run, so no absence
reported anywhere in this document counts as evidence of absence.

## 10. Analysis

This section is a matrix and a causal ledger, **not a narrative**. Nothing in
this run's state performs prose analysis, and this renderer does not invent
one; what follows is what was recorded, read across rows and down columns.

### Bearing matrix

| Passage | `H1` | `H2` | `H3` | `H4` | `H5` |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | - | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | - | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | - |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | - |
| `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | - |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | + |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | + |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | + | - | 0 | 0 | 0 |

### Why each cell reads as it does

| Passage | Explanation | Bearing | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | `H1` | - | The 5% who say they now doubt round-earth suggests some recent shift rather than a flat, stable 1-3% baseline since 2015. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | `H2` | 0 | This single snapshot does not address whether responses reflect sincere belief versus trolling. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | `H3` | + | The 5% expressing new doubts is consistent with recent growth in skepticism, though it lacks a time series or platform-exposure link. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | `H4` | 0 | No pre-2015 comparison data is given, so this cannot show whether the figure is a measurement artifact or a real change. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` | `H5` | 0 | The passage gives no information on psychological or sociological drivers versus platform exposure. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` | `H1` | 0 | Age breakdown doesn't address whether overall prevalence is stable or trending over time. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` | `H2` | 0 | No indication of whether young respondents' answers are sincere or trollish. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` | `H3` | + | Higher belief among the heaviest social-media-using age cohort is consistent with a platform-driven recruitment story, though only associational. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` | `H4` | 0 | Demographic snapshot says nothing about measurement artifacts or pre-2015 baselines. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` | `H5` | 0 | Age skew could reflect either platform exposure or life-stage psychosocial factors, so it doesn't distinguish root cause vs. vector. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` | `H1` | 0 | Single cross-sectional demographic figure does not address stability or trend over time. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` | `H2` | 0 | Does not distinguish sincere belief from trolling or insincere responding among millennials. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` | `H3` | + | High uncertainty among millennials, heavy social-media users, is loosely consistent with platform-driven doubt but shows no causal link or growth over time. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` | `H4` | 0 | Provides no pre-2015 comparison or media-coverage timing to assess artifact-versus-genuine-growth question. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` | `H5` | 0 | Does not measure institutional distrust or identity factors, only age-based doubt about earth shape. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` | `H1` | 0 | Religiosity correlation does not speak to stability or trend of prevalence over time. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity versus trolling in self-reports. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` | `H3` | 0 | Provides no data on growth, platform algorithms, or organizational activity trends. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` | `H4` | 0 | Does not compare pre- and post-2015 measurement or coverage effects. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` | `H5` | + | Shows a strong association between religiosity and flat-earth belief, supporting a sociological/identity-based explanation independent of platforms, though only correlational. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` | `H1` | 0 | Notes a religious source of belief but says nothing about prevalence or its stability over time. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity versus trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` | `H3` | 0 | Scriptural basis for belief is unrelated to social media-driven growth or platform recruitment mechanisms. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` | `H4` | 0 | Does not speak to whether apparent growth is measurement artifact versus genuine increase. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` | `H5` | + | Identifies religious/ideological affiliation as a proposed root-cause factor independent of social media, supporting the pre-existing-factors hypothesis. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` | `H1` | + | UK figure of 3% fits within the hypothesized stable 1-3% range, though this single snapshot cannot show stability over time. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` | `H2` | 0 | No attempt to filter trolling or verify sincerity, so it cannot confirm or refute inflation by insincere responses. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` | `H3` | 0 | A single cross-sectional poll gives no time-series data on growth or platform-driven recruitment. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` | `H4` | 0 | Without a comparable pre-2015 measurement this passage cannot show whether prevalence changed or was merely newly measured. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` | `H5` | 0 | The poll reports prevalence only, with no data on psychological drivers or platform exposure. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` | `H1` | 0 | No prevalence figures or trend data are given, so this snippet does not confirm or challenge stability. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` | `H2` | 0 | No information on sincerity or insincere responding is provided. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` | `H3` | 0 | No data on growth, platform influence, or organizational activity appears here. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` | `H4` | 0 | Mentioning a survey's existence does not show whether prevalence or measurement changed over time. |
| `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` | `H5` | 0 | No psychological or sociological factors are discussed in this bare survey description. |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | `H1` | - | A combined ~10% figure for multiple conspiracy claims is much higher than the 1-3% sincere flat-earth estimate H1 proposes, though it conflates distinct beliefs. |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | `H2` | + | Lumping flat-earth with moon-landing and microchip conspiracies into one 10% figure suggests headline numbers may overstate sincere isolated flat-earth belief. |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | `H3` | 0 | No time-series or platform-attribution data is given, so it does not speak to growth or its causes. |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | `H4` | 0 | Single cross-sectional figure with no pre-2015 comparison, so it cannot address whether apparent growth is measurement artifact. |
| `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` | `H5` | 0 | No psychological or platform-exposure variables are examined, so it is silent on causal drivers of persistence. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | `H1` | 0 | This YouTube policy statement says nothing about survey-measured prevalence trends among the adult population. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | `H2` | 0 | The passage does not address sincerity versus trolling in self-reported belief. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | `H3` | + | YouTube explicitly names flat-earth content as recommendation-driven misinformation it is curbing, corroborating a mechanism by which its algorithm was amplifying such content pre-2019. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | `H4` | 0 | It confirms media/platform attention to flat-earth content but does not compare this to pre-2015 measurement or prevalence artifacts. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` | `H5` | - | By singling out its own recommendation system as a driver needing correction, this weakens the claim that platforms are merely a neutral distribution vector rather than an active causal amplifier. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | `H1` | 0 | This passage concerns platform recommendation policy, not survey-based prevalence trends among the general public. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity or trolling in self-reported belief, only content recommendation practices. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | `H3` | + | Confirms YouTube itself recognized recommendation algorithms were amplifying borderline/conspiracy content, supporting a platform-driven growth mechanism, though it doesn't measure resulting belief change. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | `H4` | 0 | Speaks to platform policy, not to whether apparent growth is a measurement artifact versus genuine increase. |
| `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` | `H5` | - | YouTube's own action to curb recommendations suggests the platform was seen as an active amplifying mechanism, cutting against the 'mere vector' framing but not decisive since it's a corporate statement, not causal evidence. |
| `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` | `H1` | 0 | Attendance figures at conferences don't establish sincere belief prevalence rates or trends. |
| `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` | `H2` | 0 | Physical attendance at a real-world conference suggests some sincerity but doesn't measure trolling in surveys specifically. |
| `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` | `H3` | + | Shows organizational growth and geographic spread (multiple countries, growing conference size) consistent with genuine community expansion, though doesn't establish causal link to algorithms. |
| `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` | `H4` | 0 | Reports on conference size but doesn't compare to pre-2015 baseline or address measurement artifacts. |
| `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` | `H5` | 0 | Describes event scale and location but says nothing about underlying psychological/sociological drivers versus platform causation. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses platform role in spread but does not address stability or magnitude of sincere belief prevalence over time. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address insincerity or trolling versus genuine belief in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | `H3` | + | Supports the claim that YouTube and Twitter content have a strong impact on belief, consistent with platforms driving growth. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | `H4` | 0 | Does not compare pre- and post-2015 measurement or address whether growth is measurement artifact versus real increase. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` | `H5` | - | Cited studies claim platforms have a 'strong impact on belief', suggesting more than a mere distribution vector, weakening the vector-only claim. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` | `H1` | 0 | This passage discusses motives for conspiracy belief generally, not prevalence trends over time. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media platforms, YouTube, or growth in organized activity. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` | `H4` | 0 | Does not speak to measurement artifacts or media coverage timing. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` | `H5` | + | Identifies epistemic, existential, and social psychological motives as drivers, supporting the claim that underlying psychosocial factors predate and are independent of platforms, though it does not directly test platform independence. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` | `H1` | 0 | Passage discusses cognitive biases generally, not prevalence trends or stability. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity or trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media platforms, algorithms, or growth in organized activity. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or media coverage timing. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` | `H5` | + | Supports the idea that psychological/cognitive biases like illusory pattern perception underlie conspiracy-style beliefs independent of platform exposure. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses general conspiracy belief motives, not prevalence trends of flat-earth belief specifically. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs. trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media platforms or organizational growth mechanisms. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or historical prevalence data. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` | `H5` | + | Supports the claim that distrust, powerlessness, and existential threat are psychological/sociological drivers predating platform effects, consistent with H5's framing. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses psychological motives for CT belief, not prevalence trends over time. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in self-reports. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media/platform-driven growth or organizational activity. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or pre-2015 prevalence. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` | `H5` | + | Supports the claim that need-for-uniqueness/marginalization psychological motives underlie conspiracy-style belief, consistent with psychological drivers of flat-earth belief, though only association not controlled comparison. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses psychological correlates of susceptibility, not prevalence trends over time. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs. trolling in self-report measurement. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` | `H3` | 0 | Does not address platform-driven growth or organizational activity trends. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or pre-2015 prevalence comparisons. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` | `H5` | + | Supports the idea that individual psychological traits (scientific reasoning, conspiratorial mentality) underlie susceptibility, consistent with platforms being a vector rather than root cause. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` | `H1` | 0 | General epistemic property of conspiracy theories, no bearing on stable prevalence rates. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media growth dynamics or organizational activity. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` | `H4` | 0 | Does not speak to measurement artifacts or historical prevalence. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` | `H5` | + | Suggests an epistemic/structural feature (unfalsifiability) that helps sustain belief independent of any platform mechanism, weakly supporting non-platform root causes. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses religious/ideological framing, not prevalence trends. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media growth or platform-driven recruitment. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or historical prevalence. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` | `H5` | + | Supports H5 by linking flat-earth belief to deep-rooted religious/dualistic ideology predating social media. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses psychological function of belief but does not address prevalence stability or trend data. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media platforms or organizational growth. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or media coverage timing. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` | `H5` | + | Supports notion that psychological needs (control, meaning) underlie conspiracy/religious-like belief independent of platform exposure. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` | `H1` | 0 | Describes a motivational narrative but says nothing about prevalence levels or trends since 2015. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in self-reports. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media, growth, or platform-driven recruitment mechanisms. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` | `H4` | 0 | Does not compare pre- and post-2015 measurement or media coverage effects. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` | `H5` | + | Suggests a psychological/existential meaning-making function for flat-earth belief, supporting a non-platform-centric explanatory factor, though it establishes no causal mechanism or controls. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | `H1` | 0 | Statement about research gaps does not address prevalence levels or trends over time. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity or trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | `H3` | - | Implies social media influence alone is insufficient explanation, calling for prior psychological readiness rather than platform-driven growth. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or historical prevalence data. |
| `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` | `H5` | + | Explicitly calls for study of pre-existing psychological processes that precede social media adoption, supporting platforms-as-vector rather than root-cause framing. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` | `H1` | 0 | Sample description doesn't provide time-series prevalence data to assess stability or trend. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` | `H2` | 0 | No information on sincerity-filtering methods or comparison of true vs. reported belief rates. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` | `H3` | + | Confirms existence of an organized FEIC event with an identifiable attendee sample, indicating some organizational activity, but gives no growth/decline trend. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` | `H4` | 0 | Sample composition alone doesn't address whether apparent growth is measurement artifact vs. genuine increase. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` | `H5` | 0 | No psychological or causal data presented, just recruitment sources. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` | `H1` | 0 | Discusses psychological drivers, not prevalence trends or stability of belief levels. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity vs trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` | `H3` | 0 | Focuses on religious/institutional distrust motives, not social media causation or growth trends. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or timing of belief prevalence changes. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` | `H5` | + | Supports the idea that religious literalism and institutional distrust, independent of platforms, underlie flat-earth belief, consistent with H5's framing. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` | `H1` | 0 | This study on conspiracy mentality and religiosity says nothing about prevalence trends over time. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address whether survey responses are sincere or trolling. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` | `H3` | 0 | No mention of social media, YouTube, or organizational growth. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or pre-2015 prevalence. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` | `H5` | + | Finds Flat Earthers score higher on conspiracy mentality than a comparison group, supporting a psychological/sociological driver independent of religiosity, though only correlational with a control group. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` | `H1` | 0 | Does not address prevalence levels or trends over time. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` | `H2` | 0 | Does not address sincerity or trolling in survey responses. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` | `H3` | 0 | Does not address social media/platform-driven growth or organizational activity. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` | `H4` | 0 | Does not address measurement artifacts or pre-2015 prevalence data. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` | `H5` | + | Identifies biblical literalism and conspiracy ideation as predictors, supporting a psychological/ideological explanation independent of platforms, though it is association not causal isolation from platform effects. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | `H1` | 0 | Self-perception of skepticism among Flat-Earthers says nothing about prevalence trends over time. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | `H2` | - | Flat-Earthers' self-identification as logical/skeptical suggests sincere identity-based belief rather than trolling, weakly undercutting the insincerity hypothesis. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | `H3` | 0 | This finding about self-perceived traits does not address growth or platform-driven recruitment. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | `H4` | 0 | Does not speak to whether apparent growth is a measurement artifact. |
| `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` | `H5` | + | Indicates an epistemic-style/self-concept factor (perceived skepticism) distinguishing believers, consistent with psychological explanations of persistence, though only associational. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | `H1` | + | 2% figure falls within the hypothesized 1-3% range, consistent with a small stable minority. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | `H2` | - | The word 'resolutely' suggests the poll attempted to capture sincere conviction rather than trolling, weakly undercutting the inflation hypothesis. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | `H3` | 0 | A single snapshot figure with no time-series or platform-exposure data cannot show growth or algorithmic causation. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | `H4` | 0 | No comparison to pre-2015 measurement or media-coverage timing is given, so it cannot distinguish genuine growth from measurement artifact. |
| `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` | `H5` | 0 | The passage contains no data on psychological or sociological correlates or platform exposure. |

### Causal ledger

What each passage's evidence establishes about causation, from a closed
vocabulary. An empty entry is the ordinary answer: most passages report an
association, and saying so is a result rather than an omission.

- `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01` — mechanism
- `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02` — mechanism
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04` — mechanism
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05` — mechanism
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07` — mechanism
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11` — mechanism
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03` — controls
- `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05` — no causal criterion named; association only
- `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01` — no causal criterion named; association only

And what each finding claims of it:

- `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_d0bc592e54a07115_03` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_ba919a88211c4934_04` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_358185cc28a344e2_05` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_42a14fce1fea89ce_06` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_cd5926810e30a467_07` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_eb50922bda97dfc8_08` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_fd3df671e730e45e_09` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_b156647cfd1b7878_10` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_5e3acbc8982d7129_00` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_b7eceb523b90abe1_01` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_690fb8d4c8816f93_02` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_8e2984e3ed94befb_03` — not a causal claim
- `fnd_de58f98ce9d86235_04` — not a causal claim

## 11. Conclusions

There is **no run-level verdict** in this run's state — no field holds one —
and this renderer does not invent one. What follows is what the run recorded,
each claim carrying the kind of claim it is.

*This run does not record which stage minted each finding.*

`ResearchState.findings` is a single tuple with no stage marker, so a reloaded
run cannot separate the synthesis from the later gaps sweep. The split between
this section and §14 therefore rests on each finding's own status, which is a
property of the claim, not on which stage produced it.

### What the run recorded

- `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` [inferred] Across the entire scored ledger, the only hypothesis with converging multi-source support is H5's positive claim that pre-existing psychological and sociological dispositions underlie flat-earth belief: epistemic/existential/social conspiracy motives and cognitive bias (ev_ee1ed9680f96_03, ev_ee1ed9680f96_04, ev_ee1ed9680f96_06, ev_ee1ed9680f96_11), distrust/powerlessness and marginalization (ev_ee1ed9680f96_05), low scientific reasoning plus conspiratorial mentality (ev_ee1ed9680f96_07), unfalsifiability as a sustaining feature (ev_ee1ed9680f96_08), religious dualism and biblical literalism (ev_ee1ed9680f96_10, ev_1dd2c566f23a_02, ev_1dd2c566f23a_04, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06), meaning-making (ev_ee1ed9680f96_12), and survey/attendee evidence that flat-earthers are far more religious than the general public (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05), score higher on conspiracy mentality than a national sample matched on religiosity and evolution belief (ev_1dd2c566f23a_03), and see themselves as unusually skeptical and logical (ev_1dd2c566f23a_05). All of this is cross-sectional and correlational, so it supports the existence of these drivers, not their causal priority over platform exposure. Cites `ev_ee1ed9680f96_03`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_04`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_06`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_08`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_10`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_11`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_12`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_02`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_03`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_04`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_05`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_06`.
- `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` [inferred] H5 stops holding in its strong form — platforms as 'mere distribution vector' — because the same ledger contains claims that platform content itself moves belief: reviewed work on YouTube visual and Twitter written flat-earth arguments is characterized as having 'a strong impact on belief' (ev_ee1ed9680f96_02), and YouTube's own policy statement singles out flat-earth claims as content its recommender was amplifying and would begin demoting (ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01, ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02). The tension inside the psychological literature is explicit: ev_ee1ed9680f96_13 argues social-media-behavior research must be supplemented by the psychological readiness that 'prepares the way' for adoption, i.e. it concedes platform research dominates but asserts, without testing, that disposition comes first. The defensible reading is a two-stage account (disposition selects who is recruitable, platforms determine who is reached), which neither H3 nor H5 as stated captures. Cites `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_13`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02`.
- `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` [inferred] The decisive test between H3 and H5 — whether platform/algorithmic exposure predicts new belief formation after controlling for institutional distrust, epistemic style and identity factors — is not addressed by any evidence here. ev_ee1ed9680f96_02 asserts strong belief impact but reports no controls, randomization or longitudinal design, and ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01 and ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02 are corporate policy statements naming a mechanism, not measurements of belief change. Mechanism plausibility is therefore the highest causal criterion the platform side of the ledger reaches. Cites `ev_ee1ed9680f96_02`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_02`.
- `fnd_d0bc592e54a07115_03` [observed] On magnitude alone, H1's 1-3% band is corroborated by two independent national polls under firmness-demanding wording: 2% of Americans 'resolutely' say the Earth is flat (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01) and 3% of Britons say it is probably or definitely true with 93% rejecting it (ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01, ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02). Cites `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01`, `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01`, `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_02`.
- `fnd_358185cc28a344e2_05` [inferred] The apparent conflict between the ~2-3% figures and the nationwide ~10% figure (ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03) is explained by measurement construction rather than by real disagreement about flat-earth prevalence: the 10% is a composite over agreement with any of three distinct claims (flat Earth, faked Moon landings, vaccine microchips), while the low figures isolate flat-Earth and require firm endorsement ('resolutely', 'probably or definitely true') (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01, ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01). The same graded structure appears within one poll: 2% flat, 5% former round-Earth believers who now have doubts, 84% round overall and only 66% of millennials firmly round (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04). Headline numbers therefore index how much firmness and how much item-aggregation the instrument permits, which is the mechanism H2 posits without being evidence of insincerity. Cites `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_02`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04`, `ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01`, `ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03`.
- `fnd_42a14fce1fea89ce_06` [inferred] H2's specific claim — that trolling and contrarian responding inflate poll figures such that sincere prevalence is under 1% — receives no direct test in this ledger; the countervailing signals are only indirect, namely a costly-signal sample recruited in person at the first Flat Earth International Conference (ev_1dd2c566f23a_01), roughly 600 attendees at the third such conference plus conventions in Brazil, Britain and Italy (ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02), and flat-earthers' self-description as more skeptical and logical than a national sample (ev_1dd2c566f23a_05). These establish that a sincere, self-identifying core exists but cannot bound what fraction of the 2-3% poll respondents it constitutes. Cites `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01`, `ev_1dd2c566f23a_05`, `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02`.
- `fnd_cd5926810e30a467_07` [inferred] H3's growth claim is supported only for organized activity, and only weakly: the ledger shows a conference series reaching a third annual instalment with about 600 attendees and international spread (ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02) and a first-conference attendee sample of just n=23 (ev_1dd2c566f23a_01), which is suggestive of expansion but is not a comparable attendance series. No evidence links any of this to algorithmic recommendation, and nothing measures activity or prevalence after YouTube's announced demotion of flat-earth recommendations (ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01), which is exactly the interruption H3's falsifier requires. Cites `ev_1dd2c566f23a_01`, `ev_falsify_afcfe29532e3_21e285753e967b88e0ec03a7_02`, `ev_falsify_ec438c60b54a_5e1c268c9f38307ffabee738_01`.
- `fnd_eb50922bda97dfc8_08` [inferred] The age gradient — 4% flat-earth belief among 18-24s, the highest of any group, and only 66% of millennials firmly round-Earth (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03, ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04) — is equally predicted by H3 (young cohorts are heaviest recommender-fed platform users) and by H5 (youth co-varies with life-stage uncertainty, powerlessness and lower accumulated science knowledge, per ev_ee1ed9680f96_05 and ev_ee1ed9680f96_07). It is therefore non-diagnostic and should not be read as platform evidence. Cites `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_03`, `ev_7edbe4b0dd75_04`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_05`, `ev_ee1ed9680f96_07`.
- `fnd_b156647cfd1b7878_10` [hypothesized] A plausible reconciliation the ledger cannot yet adjudicate: firm flat-earth endorsement is dispositionally gated and near-constant at low single digits, while the far larger soft-doubt margin (the 5% ex-round-Earth doubters and the ~18-point gap between 84% round overall and 66% firmly-round millennials) is the elastic component that platform exposure and media coverage actually move — which would make H1 and H3/H4 true of different quantities rather than rivals.

### How the explanations stood at the end

In the roster's own order, deliberately not sorted by any summed score.

| Explanation | ++ | + | 0 | - | -- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `H1` | 0 | 2 | 24 | 2 | 0 |
| `H2` | 0 | 1 | 25 | 2 | 0 |
| `H3` | 0 | 8 | 19 | 1 | 0 |
| `H4` | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0 |
| `H5` | 0 | 16 | 9 | 3 | 0 |

## 12. Confidence Assessment

Every level below is **computed** from this run's own ledger: how many
passages back the finding, how many distinct *origins* those passages trace
to, and whether the counter-search came back holding anything.
**No stage was asked for this label**, and no model typed one. Origins rather
than hosts, because four hundred sites paraphrasing one blog post are one
source; and a source whose provenance could not be established never raises a
level, since unknown provenance is unknown independence.

A finding that cites nothing reads `unknown`. That is the honest result and
not a missing measurement: **nothing in this run backs it** yet.

| Finding | Level | What that is counted from |
|---|---|---|
| `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` | unknown | 15 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 3 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` | unknown | 4 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` | unknown | 3 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_d0bc592e54a07115_03` | unknown | 3 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_ba919a88211c4934_04` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_358185cc28a344e2_05` | unknown | 5 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 3 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_42a14fce1fea89ce_06` | unknown | 3 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_cd5926810e30a467_07` | unknown | 3 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 3 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_eb50922bda97dfc8_08` | unknown | 4 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found; 2 source(s) could not be traced to an origin. |
| `fnd_fd3df671e730e45e_09` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_b156647cfd1b7878_10` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_5e3acbc8982d7129_00` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_b7eceb523b90abe1_01` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_690fb8d4c8816f93_02` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_8e2984e3ed94befb_03` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |
| `fnd_de58f98ce9d86235_04` | unknown | 0 passage(s) tracing to 0 distinct origin(s); counter-evidence was found. |

## 13. Limitations

### Audit measurements

Counted from the ledger rather than answered by a model, and printed even
when the result is zero. Provenance tracing and primary-data classification
are separate measurements: reaching an upstream origin does not make a source
primary data, and a primary-data source can still have unresolved provenance.

- Origin tracing: 0/15 snapshot(s) reached an upstream origin (0.00%).
- Primary-data share: 0/15 assessed source(s) were assigned stage 9's `primary_data` tier (0.00%).

#### Distinct source families behind each asserted finding

Repeated passages and several URLs from one family still count once. Unknown
findings are open questions rather than conclusions, so they are not rows here.

| Finding | Distinct source families |
|---|---|
| `fnd_84dff57408966074_00` | 3 |
| `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01` | 2 |
| `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02` | 2 |
| `fnd_d0bc592e54a07115_03` | 1 |
| `fnd_358185cc28a344e2_05` | 2 |
| `fnd_42a14fce1fea89ce_06` | 2 |
| `fnd_cd5926810e30a467_07` | 3 |
| `fnd_eb50922bda97dfc8_08` | 2 |
| `fnd_b156647cfd1b7878_10` | 0 |

- Falsification yield: 4/9 adversarial search(es) yielded a snapshot-bound, verified counter-passage (44.44%).

*This run does not record an excerpt-verification tally.*

### Attacks made on this run's own conclusions

- `stp_2bf4bf907e31310f_00` [source_dependence] against `fnd_84dff57408966074_00`: The psychological and sociological profile relies heavily on a narrow set of overlapping review citations and small convenience samples from conference attendees, which may overstate the prevalence of conspiratorial mentality and religious literalism across the wider population of believers. It fails if: Representative psychometric sampling of broader flat-earth adherents indicates substantial segments whose belief is driven by social belonging or informational exposure rather than high baseline conspiracy mentality or religious literalism.
- `stp_8ea58e35b81abce9_01` [alternative_explanation] against `fnd_51275ed0ea2946b5_01`: Positing a two-stage model where pre-existing disposition selects recruitable individuals and platforms merely determine reach overlooks whether platform algorithmic exposure can independently generate conspiratorial thinking in previously unpredisposed users. It fails if: Longitudinal controlled studies show that sustained platform recommendation exposure induces flat-earth endorsement among individuals with baseline-normative scientific literacy and no prior conspiratorial ideation.
- `stp_ac677f7744e66811_02` [source_dependence] against `fnd_79a75409810f2312_02`: Treating platform algorithmic impact as restricted to mechanism plausibility relies on the absence of public controlled studies, ignoring that internal corporate policy actions may have been predicated on proprietary empirical telemetry showing direct conversion dynamics. It fails if: Release of internal platform audit data confirms that recommender pathways directly accelerated conversion rates relative to matched unexposed search traffic.
- `stp_d595565a8f2c3689_03` [measurement_error] against `fnd_d0bc592e54a07115_03`: Assuming the 1-3% band reflects true belief assumes respondents answering firmness-demanding survey prompts are entirely sincere and not influenced by careless responding, acquiescence bias, or survey fatigue. It fails if: In-depth re-interviewing and attention-screened validation of poll respondents who endorsed 'resolutely flat' shows that the majority clicked erroneously, misread the prompt, or disavow the belief upon verification.
- `stp_aa3b1c93ed6e72ec_04` [measurement_error] against `fnd_358185cc28a344e2_05`: Explaining the divergence between 2-3% and ~10% purely through composite item aggregation ignores whether differences in survey framing, mode of administration, or response scales systematically altered endorsement thresholds. It fails if: Split-ballot experiments demonstrate that single-item flat-earth questions yield ~10% endorsement under specific non-firm response scales without bundling multiple conspiracy theories.
- `stp_a3070a8fdd5ba422_05` [selection_bias] against `fnd_42a14fce1fea89ce_06`: Using physical conference attendance and self-described skepticism to validate a sincere core does not bound the proportion of poll respondents who are insincere, since high-commitment conference attendees are an unrepresentative extreme of the survey population. It fails if: Representative polling utilizing embedded trap questions and honesty checks establishes that over 80% of poll respondents selecting flat-earth options are insincere or trolling.
- `stp_0bd97a254540763d_06` [survivorship_bias] against `fnd_cd5926810e30a467_07`: Inferring expansion from conference growth (from n=23 surveyed to 600 attendees) assumes attendance reflects overall movement scale rather than increased media publicity, curious onlookers, or higher central organization among an otherwise static population. It fails if: Attendee registration data reveals that non-believing attendees, journalists, and novelty-seekers accounted for the vast majority of conference attendance growth rather than new sincere converts.
- `stp_d360fd6ebe4788de_07` [confounding] against `fnd_eb50922bda97dfc8_08`: Declaring the age gradient non-diagnostic assumes platform exposure and youth-associated psychological traits cannot be separated, without evaluating whether platform consumption differences within youth cohorts predict belief variation. It fails if: Within young demographic cohorts, high platform algorithmic exposure is found to predict flat-earth belief independently of psychological distress, institutional trust, and educational attainment.
- `stp_4cccbb7b997ae4dc_08` [alternative_explanation] against `fnd_b156647cfd1b7878_10`: Hypothesizing that platform exposure specifically drives the soft-doubt margin assumes that soft doubt represents an elastic, recruitable state rather than transient polling noise or ambiguous question interpretation. It fails if: Longitudinal polling tracking individuals expressing soft doubt shows that their uncertainty resolves spontaneously over time without correlation to media or algorithmic platform exposure.

### Saturation

Measured, never judged. This pipeline retrieves exactly twice, so the only
comparison available is round 1 alone against both rounds combined. Source
exhaustion and information exhaustion are different things, and this measures
the first.

- Round 1 found 6 source family(ies).
- Round 2 found 9, of which 7 were new.
- New-family share of round 2: 0.78.
- Explanations whose counts moved when round 2 was added: `H1`, `H2`, `H3`, `H4`, `H5`.
- Saturated by idea.md's rule: no.

### What the sources do not state

- `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` does not state: Does not state inter-rater reliability procedures, whether transcripts were coded independently by multiple analysts, effect sizes, or any quantitative validation of themes; does not address generalizability limits beyond citing case-study literature.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The paper explicitly frames its three-case findings as illustrative and theory-generating rather than generalizable, but broader claims in the discussion (e.g., about conspiracy theorists' motives and community dynamics generally) extend beyond what three interviews can support, even though the authors acknowledge the case-study limitation.
- `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` does not state: Specific statistical methods, funding source, IRB/ethics approval, recruitment details beyond panel/conference, and any conflicts of interest.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The abstract presents findings from a small conference sample (n=23) alongside a much larger panel sample without stating how generalizability differences were addressed.
- `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` does not state: No sample size, dates of fieldwork, exact question wording, margin of error, weighting/demographic adjustment method, or peer review is stated.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The headline and body draw a firm link ('a link between belief in a flat earth and spirituality') from a single cross-tabulation of self-reported religiosity, without controlling for other variables or providing statistical significance, so the strength of the stated conclusion exceeds the described evidence.
- `src_be3b1e207ae3539e7a4a90c6` does not state: The document provides no content: no methodology, sample, statistical approach, funding, or conflict-of-interest information appears anywhere in the text supplied.
- `src_211e28861c64be3ec089590f` does not state: Exact question wording/response options beyond examples given, weighting methodology, margin of error, and full statistical significance testing are not stated in this excerpt.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The report draws broad conclusions about demographic knowledge gaps (e.g., by race, gender) from a 12-question survey that it itself describes as 'a small slice of science knowledge,' a caveat the source states explicitly.
- `src_912525d7c66ef453c008a9e6` does not state: The entire methodology, findings, and conclusions of the purported systematic review are absent; the page contains only a bot-check redirect notice.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The page offers no conclusion at all, so no gap between evidence and conclusion can be assessed from this content.
- `src_76378a1074bf5266c8e11eea` does not state: No study description, data collection method, sample details, controls, statistics, funding, or conflicts of interest are given anywhere in the text.
- `src_e10c501b3acd254af2959a60` does not state: Sample size, fieldwork dates, weighting methodology, margin of error, and full survey question wording are not stated in the article; a link to 'full results' is given but not reproduced here.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The article draws general conclusions about 'what Britons believe' from a single online panel survey without detailing sample representativeness, so the breadth of claims about the national population exceeds the methodological detail provided.
- `src_f528161cdb2649fda9feb0f2` does not state: Exact question wording/order beyond the listed statements, response rate, margin of error calculation method, demographic weighting formulas, and whether the brief underwent formal peer review are not stated. IRB approval is noted but journal publication/peer review is not mentioned.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The brief draws generational and political conclusions from a single cross-sectional survey without replication; it acknowledges this itself, noting the political patterns in flat-Earth and Moon-landing responses are 'new, hence in need of replication,' while still framing them as fitting broader established patterns.
- `src_9f76e269f66e844e4030bcd5` does not state: No original methodology, sample sizes, or statistical tests are disclosed by the author; he does not state how he verified the skeptic-blogosphere's reanalysis claims, and admits uncertainty ('somebody else do an independent look... and double-check this for me').
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The author draws a broad conclusion ('polls that rely on detecting very weak signals should be taken with a grain of salt') from a small set of anecdotal and secondhand examples, without independently verifying the underlying data or reanalyses he cites.
- `src_3b0bbf858d6341d32cf44d1b` does not state: Does not state inter-rater reliability procedures for thematic coding, does not state how representative these three cases are of Flat Earthers generally, does not state participant ages precisely (only decades), and does not state any external verification of participants' self-reported life histories.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The paper draws broad theoretical conclusions about motives and cultural psychology of conspiracy theorists and Flat Earthers generally from an explicit n=3 case study; the authors acknowledge generalizability critiques but frame generalization as theoretical rather than statistical, which readers should note when the discussion extends findings toward general claims about conspiracy theorists.
- `src_5fdbaa5cd376c96ceeb9ce73` does not state: No raw data, evaluation results, effect sizes, evaluator guidelines in full, geographic rollout details, or independent verification are provided.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The post claims improved recommendation quality and reduced borderline content spread, but provides no measurable evidence (data, evaluation metrics, or before/after comparison) to support these claims—only self-reported assurances.
- `src_16849fb42978f61a12cf17fc` does not state: Methodology of the cited surveys, statistical significance, article's own fact-checking process beyond citing NASA, and any funding or institutional support for the reporting.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The article's framing suggests a possibly deeper, more organized 'darker core' (e.g., links to populism, radicalization) but presents mainly individual anecdotes and expert commentary rather than systematic evidence for a coordinated darker agenda.
- `src_493287fd8639b0f0c1011f43` does not state: No details on YouGov's panel recruitment/weighting methodology, no explanation for the sample-size discrepancy, no raw data published, and no information on non-response rates.
  - Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The authors acknowledge 'genuine flaws' and an unresolved data discrepancy yet still conclude the poll 'credibly indicates' flat-Earthers exist, supplementing with anecdotal event attendance rather than resolving the underlying data problem.
- `src_fb6bfcb314b896e23705be5b` does not state: Nearly everything about method is absent: data collection, sample, controls, statistics, funding, conflicts. Only title, authors, publication date, citation/reference counts, and topic tags are given.

### Provenance not established

- 15 source(s) could not be traced to an origin.

*This run does not record how each source's provenance was resolved.*

Only the resulting origin id reaches canonical state, so this document
**cannot tell an original source from an untraced one**: both arrive holding
no origin, and unknown provenance is unknown independence.

### Explanations no observation could settle

*This run holds no self-sealing explanations.*

### What the question assumed

- Assumes the research interest is in the contemporary social/psychological phenomenon of flat-earth belief rather than the geometric or historical study of the concept itself
- Assumes survey and polling data (e.g., YouGov, Public Policy Polling) are acceptable proxies for measuring belief prevalence despite known limitations
- Assumes 'Flat Earth' does not refer to a metaphorical, literary, or fictional use of the term (e.g., novels, video games) unless explicitly reintroduced by a later stage

### What this document cannot say

*This run does not record any pre-registered probe.*

*This run does not record whether any reviewer approved any gate.*

*This run does not record its own cost or wall-clock time.*

The gate record and the budget counters live in the console and are not
carried by canonical state, so nothing in this document is a claim that a
person reviewed any step of this run.

One more, about this page rather than about the run. No URL written by a
model is a link here: a source's address is printed as text beside the
digest of the bytes that were actually stored, because a clickable target
is a claim that the address resolves to what the run read, and nothing
checked that. An email address typed into a recorded fact is the single
exception a markdown reader may still turn into a link on its own, and it
is not one this renderer can suppress without altering the text it was
given.

## 14. Open Questions

*This run does not record which stage minted each finding.*

As in §11: the split between a conclusion and a gap rests on each finding's
own status, because state carries no marker for which stage minted it.

### Findings this run could not settle

- `fnd_ba919a88211c4934_04` H1's second and load-bearing clause — stability since 2015 — is untested here. Every prevalence datum in the ledger is a single cross-section (ev_7edbe4b0dd75_01, ev_falsify_93418c4bd61d_8146c396a31a67267413b490_01, ev_falsify_e636833d6b78_10c7e40b7d5e0ee1237d4fdd_03), and no two share methodology and a date, so no trend can be estimated in either direction. Would be settled by: Repeated waves of one instrument (e.g. successive YouGov flat-earth items 2015-present) with identical question wording and response options, reported with sampling error, so a slope can be tested.
- `fnd_fd3df671e730e45e_09` H4 is neither supported nor refuted by anything in this ledger: there is no pre-2015 survey or documentary prevalence datum and no time series of media coverage to compare against belief estimates, so the artifact-of-new-measurement account remains wholly open and, given the absence of trend data noted above, is currently indistinguishable from H1. Would be settled by: Pre-2015 general-population survey items on Earth's shape (or archival equivalents such as national science-literacy batteries) alongside a dated series of media mentions, permitting a test of whether prevalence shifts preceded, followed, or was independent of coverage spikes.
- `fnd_5e3acbc8982d7129_00` Whether sincere flat-earth prevalence has trended up, down, or stayed flat since 2015 is unresolved because no two prevalence estimates in the record share both consistent methodology and multiple time points. Would be settled by: Repeated-wave surveys with identical question wording and firmness thresholds (e.g., YouGov's 'resolutely'/'probably or definitely' phrasing) administered to comparable samples at multiple dates between 2015 and present, allowing a statistical trend test.
- `fnd_b7eceb523b90abe1_01` Whether headline poll-based flat-earth prevalence is inflated by insincere/trolling responses relative to sincere belief is unresolved; the ledger has only indirect proxies (conference attendance, self-described skepticism) that cannot bound the insincere fraction. Would be settled by: Studies applying validated insincere-response detection (attention checks, follow-up interviews, behavioral corroboration such as willingness to bet or travel) directly to flat-earth survey items, compared against unfiltered self-report rates.
- `fnd_690fb8d4c8816f93_02` Whether platform algorithmic exposure causally drives new belief formation independent of pre-existing psychological/sociological dispositions is unresolved; existing evidence establishes plausible mechanism on each side but no design isolates one from the other. Would be settled by: Longitudinal or experimental data tracking individuals' algorithmic exposure and belief change over time while statistically controlling for institutional distrust, conspiratorial mentality, religiosity, and epistemic style at baseline.
- `fnd_8e2984e3ed94befb_03` Whether organized flat-earth activity (conference attendance, community size) has continued growing, plateaued, or declined after platforms like YouTube began demoting flat-earth recommendations in 2019 is unresolved; the ledger's attendance data predates or is silent on that policy change. Would be settled by: Conference attendance figures, membership counts, or engagement metrics for flat-earth communities collected after 2019, comparable in methodology to the pre-2019 figures, to test for a post-policy-change plateau or decline.
- `fnd_de58f98ce9d86235_04` Whether apparent post-2015 increases in flat-earth belief/discussion reflect genuine prevalence change or merely reflect surveys and documentaries first asking about the topic, and whether any prevalence shifts preceded or followed spikes in media coverage, is unresolved; no pre-2015 comparable measurement or coverage timeline appears in the record. Would be settled by: Pre-2015 survey or documentary data using equivalent question wording and firmness thresholds, or a timeline correlating media coverage volume with belief-prevalence measurements, to establish sequencing and rule out measurement-artifact explanations.

### Explanations nothing has weighed

A live explanation no passage declared a bearing on. This is not the same as
an explanation every passage found non-discriminating, which is a finding.

*This run holds no explanations nothing has weighed.*

### Parts of the question no passage answers

- `SQ3` — How does measured or estimated flat-earth belief prevalence vary across countries where data exists (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Brazil), and what explains any cross-national differences?
- `SQ9` — What alternative explanations or interpretations exist for self-reported flat-earth belief in surveys, such as trolling, satire, contrarian signaling, or survey response error, and how might these affect prevalence estimates?
- `SQ10` — Where do researchers or data sources disagree about the extent, growth, or causes of flat-earth belief, and what disconfirming evidence exists against claims of significant persistence or growth?
- `SQ11` — What are the documented historical antecedents (e.g., 19th-century flat-earth societies) that provide context for understanding the modern flat-earth movement, without extending analysis to pre-19th-century cosmology?

### Ambiguities the question recorded

- Whether 'Flat Earth' as input refers to the belief/movement itself, its portrayal in media, its psychological/sociological correlates, or its history "the topic is not specified beyond the two words"
- Whether the intended question concerns prevalence (how many believe it), causes (why people believe it), or cultural/social impact (how it manifests, e.g., in media or politics)
- Whether self-report surveys capture genuine belief, satire/trolling, or contrarian signaling, which could substantially change prevalence estimates

## 15. Sources

*This run does not record which query found each source.*

Retrieval keeps no link from a search to the sources it returned, and this
renderer will not invent one; §4's searches and the list below cannot be
joined by anything in this document.

### Snapshotted sources

Bytes were fetched, hashed and stored for each of these. Only these can
support a claim.

#### `src_2a1d02ce5b6e8e5bd8692bee` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers | Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science | Springer Nature Link

- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Retrieval round: 1.
- Source family: `web:link.springer.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `ee1ed9680f965a91cfb1013dfc9c1c31ab09326f50bd3e9c22b1652d6462029d`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T22:55:34.104781+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: 2024-07-26
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `peer_reviewed`.
- What was studied: Life-narratives of three self-identified Flat Earthers, examining motives (epistemic, existential, social) and knowledge systems (scientific, religious, societal) in their adoption of the belief, using a cultural psychology framework.
- Data collection: Semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom in March 2021, in English or Danish, lasting 45–90 minutes, recorded with consent and transcribed with minimal punctuation.
- Sample: Three participants recruited via a Facebook post to Flat Earth-associated groups (initially targeting Flat Earth Society members, later broadened); one Danish man, one UK carpenter, one US environmental worker, all from predominantly Christian countries.
- Controls: None stated; this is a qualitative case-study/narrative design with no control group or comparison condition described.
- Statistical approach: No statistical analysis; uses narrative analysis (McAdams' high/low/turning points) and thematic/case-study methods to interpret interview content.
- Funding: Open access funding provided by Copenhagen University; no funding for the research itself is stated.
- Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
- Does not state: Does not state inter-rater reliability procedures, whether transcripts were coded independently by multiple analysts, effect sizes, or any quantitative validation of themes; does not address generalizability limits beyond citing case-study literature.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The paper explicitly frames its three-case findings as illustrative and theory-generating rather than generalizable, but broader claims in the discussion (e.g., about conspiracy theorists' motives and community dynamics generally) extend beyond what three interviews can support, even though the authors acknowledge the case-study limitation.

#### `src_d3d26137a3dafce4872ca676` — Conspiracy theorizing and religious motivated reasoning: Why the earth ‘must’ be flat

- URL: `https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/29e0c519-6e13-46ef-945d-756cb3a2cc40`
- Retrieval round: 1.
- Source family: `web:ttu-ir.tdl.org`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `1dd2c566f23a096b16926c5853fba58fed22a033ab04ec7e3455dfb4bd1e68f1`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T22:55:38.467252+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: not recorded
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `technical_report`.
- What was studied: Whether Biblical literalism and conspiracy ideation predict belief in a flat Earth, and whether high conspiracy ideation (including Flat Earthers) correlates with self-perceived rationality/skepticism.
- Data collection: Survey data collected from two samples: an online national marketing panel and attendees at the first Flat Earth International Conference.
- Sample: N = 513 from a national online marketing panel; n = 23 recruited at the Flat Earth International Conference.
- Controls: Not stated beyond comparing the two samples on religiosity and belief in evolution.
- Statistical approach: Comparative analysis between samples on religiosity, evolution belief, conspiracy mentality, and self-rated skepticism/logic; specific statistical tests not stated in the abstract.
- Funding: Not stated.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated.
- Does not state: Specific statistical methods, funding source, IRB/ethics approval, recruitment details beyond panel/conference, and any conflicts of interest.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The abstract presents findings from a small conference sample (n=23) alongside a much larger panel sample without stating how generalizability differences were addressed.

#### `src_f746a6ac1075ab33b4d1b596` — Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious

- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious`
- Retrieval round: 1.
- Source family: `web:yougov.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `7edbe4b0dd75baf8ca0f06b6e2769162da9e66f75f87aedd1727728973c36c3c`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T22:55:39.849495+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: 2018-04-02
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `technical_report`.
- What was studied: American beliefs about the shape of the earth, age breakdowns, and the relationship between flat-earth belief and self-described religiosity, using YouGov Omnibus and YouGov Profiles survey data.
- Data collection: Online survey/polling via YouGov's panel (Omnibus and Profiles products); exact questionnaire wording not given in this article.
- Sample: Not stated precisely here beyond 'Americans' and age breakdown (e.g. 18-24 millennials); no sample size, response rate, or weighting details given in this text.
- Controls: No controls described; this is a descriptive cross-tabulation of survey responses, not an experimental or causal design.
- Statistical approach: Simple percentages reported (e.g., 2% flat earth, 84% round, 52% vs 20% 'very religious'); no margin of error, significance testing, or weighting methodology stated in the article.
- Funding: Not stated; YouGov is the survey firm and publisher, presumably funding its own proprietary poll, but this is not explicitly declared.
- Conflicts of interest: None declared; author is identified as a YouGov staff Data Journalist, and YouGov markets its own survey products (Omnibus, Profiles) within the same piece.
- Does not state: No sample size, dates of fieldwork, exact question wording, margin of error, weighting/demographic adjustment method, or peer review is stated.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The headline and body draw a firm link ('a link between belief in a flat earth and spirituality') from a single cross-tabulation of self-reported religiosity, without controlling for other variables or providing statistical significance, so the strength of the stated conclusion exceeds the described evidence.

#### `src_be3b1e207ae3539e7a4a90c6` — Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs - Public Policy Polling

- URL: `https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs/`
- Retrieval round: 1.
- Source family: `web:publicpolicypolling.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T22:55:40.007677+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: 2013-04-02
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `unsupported`.
- What was studied: The source text provided is empty; no description of what was studied is given.
- Data collection: Not stated.
- Sample: Not stated.
- Controls: Not stated.
- Statistical approach: Not stated.
- Funding: Not stated.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated.
- Does not state: The document provides no content: no methodology, sample, statistical approach, funding, or conflict-of-interest information appears anywhere in the text supplied.

#### `src_211e28861c64be3ec089590f` — What Americans know and don't know about science | Pew Research Center

- URL: `https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/`
- Retrieval round: 1.
- Source family: `web:pewresearch.org`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `64bf54fafd9ce3b04aaee0e92cca5ffeebf481faaaa8a451ba617987a76a8180`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T22:55:40.975737+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Cary Funk
- Published: 2015-09-10
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `government_institutional`.
- What was studied: American adults' knowledge of basic scientific facts and terms (12 multiple-choice questions), with demographic breakdowns by education, gender, age, and race/ethnicity.
- Data collection: Survey administered via Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel, online and by mail, Aug. 11-Sept. 3, 2014.
- Sample: 3,278 U.S. adults (2,923 online, 355 by mail); nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults.
- Controls: Comparisons made across education levels, gender, age groups, and race/ethnicity; notes that comparisons across different survey modes (phone vs. online/mail) should be made cautiously due to unknown mode effects.
- Statistical approach: Reports percentages correct on individual questions, mean/median scores out of 12, and mean comparisons across demographic subgroups (e.g., whites 8.4, Hispanics 7.1, blacks 5.9); cites cross-reference to GSS 2006-2014 data and NSF Science and Engineering Indicators.
- Funding: Not stated directly in this document; Pew Research Center is described elsewhere on the page as a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder.
- Conflicts of interest: None declared; Pew Research Center describes itself as nonpartisan and nonadvocacy.
- Does not state: Exact question wording/response options beyond examples given, weighting methodology, margin of error, and full statistical significance testing are not stated in this excerpt.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The report draws broad conclusions about demographic knowledge gaps (e.g., by race, gender) from a 12-question survey that it itself describes as 'a small slice of science knowledge,' a caveat the source states explicitly.

#### `src_912525d7c66ef453c008a9e6` — A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs: Field Characteristics, Measurement Instruments, and Associations With Personality Traits

- URL: `https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6396711/`
- Retrieval round: 1.
- Source family: `web:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `775a9f9a4d43fd408c475cbeb53604ce4e506063e7d0355f620ce9f92c63620d`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T22:55:41.270010+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: not recorded
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `unsupported`.
- What was studied: The page does not state any study topic; it is a reCAPTCHA browser-check interstitial from NCBI/PMC, not the article content.
- Data collection: Not stated. No data collection method is described.
- Sample: Not stated. No sample or population is described.
- Controls: Not stated. No controls are described.
- Statistical approach: Not stated. No statistical method is described.
- Funding: Not stated. No funding information is present.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated. No conflicts of interest are disclosed.
- Does not state: The entire methodology, findings, and conclusions of the purported systematic review are absent; the page contains only a bot-check redirect notice.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The page offers no conclusion at all, so no gap between evidence and conclusion can be assessed from this content.

#### `src_76378a1074bf5266c8e11eea` — What the world thinks

- URL: `https://today.yougov.com/opi/live_survey_results/6147e107-0a97-11e8-b216-d9ff14e72543/question/cecf46a6-0a97-11e8-bd7b-c532039a14a0/toplines/`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:today.yougov.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `6059dc4266d5121ae6b09a2c1504119f0b19d8d5ee4501b05c8442fec68934c0`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:01:56.894707+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: not recorded
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `unsupported`.
- What was studied: The source text provides only a title/tagline ('YouGov | What the world thinks') with no description of any study, survey, or methodology.
- Data collection: Not stated.
- Sample: Not stated.
- Controls: Not stated.
- Statistical approach: Not stated.
- Funding: Not stated.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated.
- Does not state: No study description, data collection method, sample details, controls, statistics, funding, or conflicts of interest are given anywhere in the text.

#### `src_e10c501b3acd254af2959a60` — Which science-based conspiracy theories do Britons believe?

- URL: `https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/22839-which-science-based-conspiracy-theories-do-britons`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:yougov.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `93418c4bd61dc61ab2ca5b2e7ac5bcb6025b6ed5f422d877a99c1416d5383787`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:01:58.944138+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Victoria Waldersee   Data Journalist
- Published: 2024-07-02
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `government_institutional`.
- What was studied: British public beliefs in various science-based conspiracy theories: climate change denial, vaccine harm claims, moon landing hoax, flat earth, and creationism.
- Data collection: A YouGov RealTime survey conducted for the Yahoo/YouGov podcast 'Britain Is A Nation Of', asking Britons about belief in each theory, broken down by age group and sometimes gender.
- Sample: Not stated. No total sample size, response rate, or exact fieldwork dates are given; only percentage breakdowns by age group (18-24, 25-44, 45-54, 55+) and gender for some questions.
- Controls: Not stated. No mention of weighting, demographic controls, or comparison groups beyond simple age/gender crosstabs.
- Statistical approach: Simple descriptive percentages of respondents selecting each response option; no statistical testing, confidence intervals, or margins of error reported in the text.
- Funding: Not stated explicitly; the survey was conducted 'for the Yahoo/YouGov podcast', suggesting a commercial/media commissioning relationship, but no funding source is detailed.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated. YouGov is both the pollster and publisher of the article, and it was produced for its own podcast content, but no conflict is explicitly declared.
- Does not state: Sample size, fieldwork dates, weighting methodology, margin of error, and full survey question wording are not stated in the article; a link to 'full results' is given but not reproduced here.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The article draws general conclusions about 'what Britons believe' from a single online panel survey without detailing sample representativeness, so the breadth of claims about the national population exceeds the methodological detail provided.

#### `src_f528161cdb2649fda9feb0f2` — Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs

- URL: `https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:carsey.unh.edu`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `e636833d6b7880940684ba44f706529bb94797ec0885f90b12377ec7dfe6ffe7`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:00.581079+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: 2022-04-25
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `technical_report`.
- What was studied: U.S. public agreement/disagreement/uncertainty with three pseudo-scientific conspiracy claims (flat Earth, faked Moon landings, vaccine microchips) and comparison scientific-fact statements, broken down by political identity (Trump approval), generation, and education.
- Data collection: Online survey (POLES 2021) administered by Qualtrics; respondents answered agree/disagree/unsure to a battery of conspiracy and science statements; attention checks used to screen thoughtless/straightlining respondents.
- Sample: 1,134 U.S. adults surveyed summer/fall 2021; sample designed to be nationally representative by age, gender, race, education, and political party, with sampling weights for final adjustment.
- Controls: No experimental controls; statement text mixed conspiracy claims with established facts for comparison; attention-check screening applied; subgroup comparisons (Trump approval, generation, education) used as observational controls.
- Statistical approach: Ordered logit regression used to test significance of differences between Trump approvers/disapprovers and between generations (p-values reported, e.g., p\<0.05 to p\<0.001; one non-significant result p=0.77).
- Funding: Supported by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation (OPP-1748325 and OPP-1822424).
- Conflicts of interest: None declared; author is a university researcher (Carsey School, UNH) presenting institutional survey research; no industry or advocacy funding disclosed.
- Does not state: Exact question wording/order beyond the listed statements, response rate, margin of error calculation method, demographic weighting formulas, and whether the brief underwent formal peer review are not stated. IRB approval is noted but journal publication/peer review is not mentioned.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The brief draws generational and political conclusions from a single cross-sectional survey without replication; it acknowledges this itself, noting the political patterns in flat-Earth and Moon-landing responses are 'new, hence in need of replication,' while still framing them as fitting broader established patterns.

#### `src_9f76e269f66e844e4030bcd5` — Lizardman’s Constant Is 4% | Slate Star Codex

- URL: `https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:slatestarcodex.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `ec2071de185ebc77ec4634d96abb04ea967fb89db7b4d455c482a7394b3579de`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:02.418492+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Scott Alexander
- Published: 2013-04-12
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `expert_analysis`.
- What was studied: The post examines a Public Policy Polling result on 'lizardman' belief and a related academic paper (Lewandowsky et al., 'NASA Faked the Moon Landing') on conspiracy ideation among climate skeptics, using them to argue that low-prevalence-belief polls are corrupted by noise (jokers, trolls, symbolic answers).
- Data collection: No original data collected by the author. He discusses PPP's phone poll methodology (automated question, press 1/2/3) and describes the Lewandowsky survey's method of recruiting respondents via links posted on climate blogs, both described secondhand from other sources, not verified firsthand.
- Sample: No sample of his own. He references PPP's national poll sample (unspecified size) and the Lewandowsky survey's self-selected online respondents, noting that very few skeptic-blog readers took part, so a handful of extreme respondents dominated the skeptic side.
- Controls: Author explicitly proposes a hypothetical control question ('Do you believe Obama is a hippopotamus?') that was not actually used in any poll discussed; no controls in the reanalyzed data are confirmed to exist.
- Statistical approach: No original statistics performed by the author. He summarizes others' re-analysis claiming a few outlier respondents drove the reported correlation, but does not present the underlying calculations or verify them independently.
- Funding: Not stated for the PPP poll or the Lewandowsky study.
- Conflicts of interest: Author raises a conflict-of-interest concern about Stephan Lewandowsky's activism via 'Shaping Tomorrow's World' potentially biasing his climate-skepticism research, but discloses no conflicts of his own.
- Does not state: No original methodology, sample sizes, or statistical tests are disclosed by the author; he does not state how he verified the skeptic-blogosphere's reanalysis claims, and admits uncertainty ('somebody else do an independent look... and double-check this for me').
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The author draws a broad conclusion ('polls that rely on detecting very weak signals should be taken with a grain of salt') from a small set of anecdotal and secondhand examples, without independently verifying the underlying data or reanalyses he cites.

#### `src_3b0bbf858d6341d32cf44d1b` — Toward a Cultural Psychology of Conspiracy Theories: A life-narrative analysis of Flat Earthers

- URL: `https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-024-09857-5`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:link.springer.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `5baf7d9eb73a9105effd63f591857289b69e61b99aa05aadd06398718e9eaf74`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:05.038991+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Kirstine Pahuus, Maja Sødinge Jørgensen, Brady Wagoner
- Published: 2024-07-26
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `peer_reviewed`.
- What was studied: Life narratives of three self-identified Flat Earthers, examining motives (epistemic, social, existential) and knowledge systems (scientific, religious, societal) in their adoption of Flat Earth belief, using a cultural psychology/narrative approach.
- Data collection: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted via Zoom in March 2021, in English or Danish depending on participant, lasting 45–90 minutes, recorded with consent and transcribed with minimal punctuation to preserve conversational flow.
- Sample: Three participants recruited via Facebook posts in Flat Earth-related groups (after initial rejection from private groups); two contacted via Facebook, one via email. No demographic sampling frame; convenience/self-selected sample from an admittedly hard-to-reach population.
- Controls: No controls described; this is a qualitative case-study design, not a comparative or experimental one. No comparison group of non-believers or alternative explanations tested.
- Statistical approach: None stated. Analysis was qualitative: narrative analysis using McAdams' life-story categories (high points, low points, turning points) and thematic identification of symbols/themes, interpreted through cultural psychology and social representations theory.
- Funding: Open access funding provided by Copenhagen University; no other funding source stated.
- Conflicts of interest: Authors declare no competing interests.
- Does not state: Does not state inter-rater reliability procedures for thematic coding, does not state how representative these three cases are of Flat Earthers generally, does not state participant ages precisely (only decades), and does not state any external verification of participants' self-reported life histories.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The paper draws broad theoretical conclusions about motives and cultural psychology of conspiracy theorists and Flat Earthers generally from an explicit n=3 case study; the authors acknowledge generalizability critiques but frame generalization as theoretical rather than statistical, which readers should note when the discussion extends findings toward general claims about conspiracy theorists.

#### `src_5fdbaa5cd376c96ceeb9ce73` — Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube   - YouTube Blog

- URL: `https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/continuing-our-work-to-improve/`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:blog.youtube`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `ec438c60b54a091a715eb592bb5d75080f65ae3a69ec9c0477b02049295e2797`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:06.424967+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: not recorded
- Published: 2019-01-25
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `industry_commentary`.
- What was studied: YouTube's own recommendation system and changes to it, including handling of 'borderline' content and misinformation-adjacent videos.
- Data collection: No dataset or methodology described; states general practices like using machine learning plus human evaluators trained on public guidelines to rate video quality.
- Sample: Not stated; only vague figures given, e.g. '200 million videos recommended on homepage' and 'less than one percent of content' affected, with no source or method for these numbers.
- Controls: None stated; no comparison groups, baselines, or experimental design described.
- Statistical approach: None stated; no statistical methods, metrics definitions, or analysis described beyond naming 'likes, dislikes, surveys, and time well spent' as satisfaction measures.
- Funding: Not applicable/not stated; published directly by YouTube about its own product.
- Conflicts of interest: Inherent conflict: the author is YouTube itself, describing and defending its own platform's policies and business practices.
- Does not state: No raw data, evaluation results, effect sizes, evaluator guidelines in full, geographic rollout details, or independent verification are provided.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The post claims improved recommendation quality and reduced borderline content spread, but provides no measurable evidence (data, evaluation metrics, or before/after comparison) to support these claims—only self-reported assurances.

#### `src_16849fb42978f61a12cf17fc` — The flat-Earth conspiracy is spreading around the globe. Does it hide a darker core? | CNN

- URL: `https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/us/flat-earth-conference-conspiracy-theories-scli-intl`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:cnn.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `afcfe29532e396ed412346e62f039a9fcb02cb82064df3cee20558a5bee0bcc2`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:08.899145+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Rob Picheta
- Published: 2019-11-17
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `quality_journalism`.
- What was studied: The flat-Earth movement's growth, community, motivations, and possible darker undercurrents (links to other conspiracy theories, distrust of institutions), via reporting on a flat-Earth conference and interviews with adherents and psychology experts.
- Data collection: Byline reporter conducted phone and in-person interviews with flat-Earth conference attendees, organizers, a filmmaker, and academic psychologists; cites two third-party surveys (YouGov, Datafolha) and a Netflix documentary as supporting context.
- Sample: Handful of named individuals interviewed (e.g., David Weiss, Robbie Davidson, Mark Sargent) plus reported ~600 conference attendees; cited surveys had 8,000+ US adults and 2,000+ Brazilian adults respectively, but article does not detail those surveys' methodology.
- Controls: Not applicable/not stated; this is journalistic reporting, not a controlled study.
- Statistical approach: None conducted by the article itself; it references percentages from two outside surveys without describing their sampling or margin of error.
- Funding: Not stated.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated; interviewees quoted have an obvious stake in promoting flat-Earth belief, which the article notes implicitly but does not formally flag as a conflict.
- Does not state: Methodology of the cited surveys, statistical significance, article's own fact-checking process beyond citing NASA, and any funding or institutional support for the reporting.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The article's framing suggests a possibly deeper, more organized 'darker core' (e.g., links to populism, radicalization) but presents mainly individual anecdotes and expert commentary rather than systematic evidence for a coordinated darker agenda.

#### `src_493287fd8639b0f0c1011f43` — Yes, Flat-Earthers Really Do Exist | Scientific American

- URL: `https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/yes-flat-earthers-really-do-exist/`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:scientificamerican.com`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `221d233679620d2064c9af0ad6b8449d34806a37e838d63f6123106223c62247`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:10.905925+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Glenn Branch, Craig A. Foster
- Published: 2018-10-24
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `quality_journalism`.
- What was studied: American public belief in flat vs. round Earth, via re-analysis of a February 2018 YouGov poll and discussion of related surveys on scientific belief; the authors critique the poll's methodology rather than conduct new research.
- Data collection: YouGov administered an online poll to a prescreened panel using a four-option belief question plus Other/Not Sure. Authors requested raw data from YouGov to compare against the published report.
- Sample: Report states 8,215 respondents; the spreadsheet YouGov supplied to the authors showed 10,374 respondents. This discrepancy is unresolved.
- Controls: Sampling restricted to a prescreened panel (addressing but not eliminating self-selection concerns); no other controls stated.
- Statistical approach: Simple percentage tabulation of response categories (2% vs 1.28% for 'always flat'); no significance testing or modeling described.
- Funding: Not stated for the original YouGov poll or for this article.
- Conflicts of interest: One author is deputy director of an advocacy nonprofit (National Center for Science Education) supporting evolution/climate education; disclosed via bio, not framed as a conflict in the text itself.
- Does not state: No details on YouGov's panel recruitment/weighting methodology, no explanation for the sample-size discrepancy, no raw data published, and no information on non-response rates.
- Evidence-to-conclusion gap: The authors acknowledge 'genuine flaws' and an unresolved data discrepancy yet still conclude the poll 'credibly indicates' flat-Earthers exist, supplementing with anecdotal event attendance rather than resolving the underlying data problem.

#### `src_fb6bfcb314b896e23705be5b` — Differential susceptibility to misleading flat earth arguments on youtube

- URL: `https://exa.ai/library/publication/rk2k1c79fd5`
- Retrieval round: 2.
- Source family: `web:exa.ai`.
- Origin: not established.
- Snapshot digest: `c422b72313a0633ac491b42487d94e6aa2fa7c15e710cc5cf01f735e23d4848d`
- Fetched at: 2026-08-28T23:02:14.680209+00:00
- Venue: not recorded.
- Authors: Asheley R. Landrum, Alex Olshansky, Othello Richards
- Published: 2019-09-29
- Retracted: no.
- Assessed tier: `unsupported`.
- What was studied: The source page (an Exa search index listing) does not itself describe the study's content beyond a title, author list, and topic tags. No description of what was studied is given.
- Data collection: Not stated. The page provides no methodology detail.
- Sample: Not stated.
- Controls: Not stated.
- Statistical approach: Not stated.
- Funding: Not stated.
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated.
- Does not state: Nearly everything about method is absent: data collection, sample, controls, statistics, funding, conflicts. Only title, authors, publication date, citation/reference counts, and topic tags are given.

### Indexed sources

Known by metadata alone — no bytes were fetched, so an indexed record
**cannot support a claim**. These inform the citation graph and nothing else,
and no finding in this document rests on one.

- `src_ab8e45eb79fbfcb1216ad338` — Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among Aesthetics, Politics, Environments and Epistemologies (`https://doi.org/10.26530/oapen_560010`), citations: 624
- `src_149c78504fefc6fdf14d7411` — Cognitive rules, institutions, and economic growth: Douglass North and beyond (`https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137416000370`), citations: 123
- `src_39e17162e82a7930a7c10f5a` — Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars (`https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319909110`), citations: 855
- `src_d9d59de10f0a4eff632225d5` — The earth is flat ( p \> 0.05): significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research (`https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3544`), citations: 305
- `src_758894bbab39613a2b8f9019` — Skateboarding in Seoul: A Sensory Ethnography (`https://doi.org/10.21827/6090facd36a4f`), citations: 17
- `src_8decb648f717c55efe1fad17` — A uniform not uniform : an ethnography of police clothing, performance, gender and subculture in neighbourhood policing (`http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/41116/1/PHD%20January%202017%20Final.pdf`), citations: 6
- `src_c9ea9adda66d473c2bbd795b` — Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories (`https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1362`), citations: 185
- `src_2814657fd76e41d28794deb2` — Far-Right Online Radicalization: A Review of the Literature (`https://doi.org/10.21428/bfcb0bff.e9492a11`), citations: 75
- `src_f324b99c2154c814e8628832` — What Are Conspiracy Theories? A Definitional Approach to Their Correlates, Consequences, and Communication (`https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031329`), citations: 317
- `src_0209d7f4d2b8aec0b76d667c` — Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain (`https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530`), citations: 495