diff --git a/src/_data/research/claims.yml b/src/_data/research/claims.yml index 82ef6d6..c2d25a2 100644 --- a/src/_data/research/claims.yml +++ b/src/_data/research/claims.yml @@ -124,3 +124,66 @@ source_ids: - hhs-1979-belmont-report limitation: "Protection must not be converted into total erasure of agency, and the report does not resolve every conflict among autonomy, harm, and public duty." + +- id: article-one-work-requirements-access + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-one + stance: dissent + status: quasi-experimental + claim: "Conditioning food assistance on work and reporting requirements can sharply reduce access among clinically and socioeconomically vulnerable recipients without producing a measurable transition off the broader safety net." + source_ids: + - ndumele-et-al-2025-snap-work-requirements + limitation: "The Connecticut study measures safety-net enrollment rather than moral contribution, long-term employment, or resource allocation under acute scarcity." + +- id: article-four-teach-back-comprehension + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-four + stance: support + status: review-backed + claim: "Teaching consequential instructions in usable language and asking the recipient to explain them back can improve comprehension, recall, self-management, and some health outcomes." + source_ids: + - talevski-et-al-2020-teach-back + limitation: "The review concerns heterogeneous health-education studies; it does not prove that teach-back generalizes to all law or that comprehension alone makes enforcement legitimate." + +- id: article-four-legislative-complexity + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-four + stance: dissent + status: theory-backed + claim: "Plain-language publication and teaching cannot by themselves make every legal duty simple or fully knowable because legislation carries irreducible technical and institutional complexity." + source_ids: + - webb-2020-legislative-complexity + limitation: "The legal analysis identifies limits of simplification but does not excuse avoidable opacity, secret rules, inadequate notice, or failure to teach applicable duties." + +- id: article-five-legal-capacity + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-five + stance: dissent + status: rights-doctrine + claim: "Legal capacity and equal civic standing cannot be made contingent on passing a generalized mental-capacity or functional-competence test; decision support should protect the exercise of rights." + source_ids: + - un-crpd-2014-legal-capacity + limitation: "The treaty-body interpretation does not prohibit task-specific competency rules for hazardous professional roles or supported-decision safeguards." + +- id: article-six-nonviolent-power + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-six + stance: dissent + status: empirical-challenge + claim: "Collective political power is not reducible to violence: nonviolent campaigns have often achieved political goals by widening participation, gaining legitimacy, and inducing loyalty shifts." + source_ids: + - stephan-chenoweth-2008-civil-resistance + limitation: "Historical campaign evidence is not a complete theory of authority, does not show violence is never decisive, and does not replace bounded emergency command." + +- id: article-seven-graded-categories + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-seven + stance: dissent + status: experimental-limit + claim: "Many natural-language categories have graded internal structure rather than a single sharp boundary, so imposing a fixed definition before conversation can misrepresent ordinary meaning." + source_ids: + - rosch-1975-semantic-categories + limitation: "Semantic-category experiments do not govern legal drafting or technical interfaces; stipulative definitions remain useful for consequential load-bearing terms." + +- id: article-eight-consent-insufficiency + article: rights-and-definitions-of-the-way.article-eight + stance: dissent + status: doctrinal-challenge + claim: "Notice and individual consent cannot by themselves legitimize every data practice because cognitive limits, scale, aggregation, downstream uses, and collective harms can defeat meaningful self-management." + source_ids: + - solove-2013-consent-dilemma + limitation: "The analysis concerns information privacy; it does not negate informed consent in medicine or research or establish that consent is irrelevant in other domains." diff --git a/src/_data/research/sources.yml b/src/_data/research/sources.yml index 1486668..2b46217 100644 --- a/src/_data/research/sources.yml +++ b/src/_data/research/sources.yml @@ -161,3 +161,85 @@ reviewed_on: "2026-07-21" relevance: "Connects respect for persons with information, comprehension, and voluntariness; also requires risk-benefit assessment and protection for diminished autonomy." boundary: "Governs human-subject research ethics and supplies a strong consent model; not every civil or private interaction is research." + +- id: ndumele-et-al-2025-snap-work-requirements + title: "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Work Requirements and Safety-Net Program Participation" + authors: "Chima D. Ndumele; Hannah Factor; Matthew Lavallee; Anthony Lollo Jr.; Jacob Wallace" + year: 2025 + publication: "JAMA Internal Medicine 185(1):92-100" + type: peer-reviewed quasi-experimental cohort study + doi: "10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5932" + url: "https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5932" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Finds that reinstated SNAP work requirements in Connecticut were associated with a substantial enrollment decline concentrated among clinically and socioeconomically vulnerable beneficiaries, without evidence of transition off the broader safety net." + boundary: "Studies one state policy and program-enrollment outcomes; it does not determine moral contribution, global food allocation, or the effects of every work requirement." + +- id: talevski-et-al-2020-teach-back + title: "Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts" + authors: "Jason Talevski; Anna Wong Shee; Bodil Rasmussen; Georgie Kemp; Alison Beauchamp" + year: 2020 + publication: "PLOS ONE 15(4):e0231350" + type: peer-reviewed systematic review + doi: "10.1371/journal.pone.0231350" + url: "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231350" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Reviews evidence that teach-back can improve health-related knowledge, recall, self-management, and some outcomes by requiring an explanation in the recipient's own words." + boundary: "The included studies were heterogeneous and generally moderate quality; health education evidence does not establish that teach-back generalizes to all law or makes enforcement legitimate." + +- id: webb-2020-legislative-complexity + title: "The Drafters’ Dance: The Complexity of Drafting Legislation and the Limitations of ‘Plain Language’ and ‘Good Law’ Initiatives" + authors: "Thomas E. Webb" + year: 2020 + publication: "Statute Law Review 41(2):129-158" + type: peer-reviewed legal analysis + doi: "10.1093/slr/hmz008" + url: "https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmz008" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Argues that legislative drafting contains irreducible technical and institutional complexity that plain-language and good-law initiatives can obscure or displace." + boundary: "A theoretical legal analysis of drafting complexity; it does not excuse avoidable opacity, secret rules, inadequate notice, or failure to teach applicable duties." + +- id: un-crpd-2014-legal-capacity + title: "General comment No. 1 (2014), Article 12: Equal recognition before the law" + authors: "United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" + year: 2014 + publication: "United Nations document CRPD/C/GC/1" + type: treaty-body interpretive guidance + url: "https://cambodia.ohchr.org/en/content/general-comment-no-1-committee-rights-persons-disabilities-equal-recognition-law" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Distinguishes universal legal capacity from variable mental capacity and requires support for exercising rights rather than status removal based on impairment or functional assessment." + boundary: "Authoritative human-rights interpretation rather than an empirical outcome study; it does not prohibit task-specific competency requirements for hazardous professional roles or supported-decision safeguards." + +- id: stephan-chenoweth-2008-civil-resistance + title: "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" + authors: "Maria J. Stephan; Erica Chenoweth" + year: 2008 + publication: "International Security 33(1):7-44" + type: peer-reviewed comparative empirical study + doi: "10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7" + url: "https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Compares major violent and nonviolent campaigns and identifies participation, legitimacy, and loyalty shifts as mechanisms through which nonviolent collective power can prevail." + boundary: "Campaign-level historical evidence is not a complete theory of authority, does not show that violence is never decisive, and does not replace bounded emergency command." + +- id: rosch-1975-semantic-categories + title: "Cognitive representations of semantic categories" + authors: "Eleanor Rosch" + year: 1975 + publication: "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104(3):192-233" + type: peer-reviewed experimental study + doi: "10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192" + url: "https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Shows that many ordinary semantic categories have graded internal structure and that typicality affects how people learn and process category members." + boundary: "Experiments on semantic categories do not govern legal drafting or technical interface standards; stipulative definitions remain useful for consequential load-bearing terms." + +- id: solove-2013-consent-dilemma + title: "Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma" + authors: "Daniel J. Solove" + year: 2013 + publication: "Harvard Law Review 126:1880-1903" + type: legal analysis grounded in empirical and social-science literature + url: "https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-126/introduction-privacy-self-management-and-the-consent-dilemma/" + reviewed_on: "2026-07-23" + relevance: "Explains how cognitive limits, information volume, aggregation, downstream uses, and collective effects make notice-and-consent insufficient as the sole governance mechanism for personal data." + boundary: "Addresses information privacy; it does not negate informed consent in medicine or research and does not establish that consent is irrelevant in other domains." diff --git a/src/research/method.njk b/src/research/method.njk index a0e481f..a6dafc0 100644 --- a/src/research/method.njk +++ b/src/research/method.njk @@ -3,7 +3,43 @@ layout: layouts/base.njk title: Research method description: How The Interdependent Way site distinguishes support, dissent, mixed evidence, implementation, and unresolved research gaps. --- -

Research method

Evidence is not a decorative citation layer.

Sources are attached to specific claims and units. A metadata service may help locate or normalize a source, but it does not decide whether the source supports, dissents from, limits, or merely contextualizes a claim.

-

Classification rules

Support

Substantive agreement

The source supplies evidence or reasoning that materially strengthens the identified claim.

Dissent

Substantive challenge

The source disputes a premise, mechanism, prediction, interpretation, or consequence.

Mixed

Conditional or partial result

The source supports one part while limiting another, or shows the claim depends on context.

Gap

No qualifying source found

The site says so directly. It does not manufacture false balance or cite a weak source to fill visual symmetry.

-

Publication requirements

  1. Identify the exact canonical unit or project claim.
  2. Record source title, authorship, date, stable identifier, and retrieval date.
  3. Separate direct findings from editorial inference.
  4. Label stance through review, not keyword sentiment.
  5. Preserve contradictory high-quality evidence.
  6. Mark retractions, corrections, and stale data.
  7. Keep implementation evidence separate from theoretical validity.
-

hmmm

The version-controlled research ledger exists as a schema boundary, but the reviewed corpus is not yet broad enough to imply comprehensive coverage.

+
+

Research method

+

Evidence is not a decorative citation layer.

+

Sources are attached to specific claims and units. A metadata service may help locate or normalize a source, but it does not decide whether the source supports, dissents from, limits, or merely contextualizes a claim.

+
+
+

Classification rules

+
+
Support

Substantive agreement

The source supplies evidence or reasoning that materially strengthens the identified claim.

+
Dissent

Substantive challenge

The source disputes a premise, mechanism, prediction, interpretation, or consequence.

+
Mixed

Conditional or partial result

The source supports one part while limiting another, or shows the claim depends on context.

+
Gap

No qualifying source found

The site says so directly. It does not manufacture false balance or cite a weak source to fill visual symmetry.

+
+
+
+

Usage guidance

+
    +
  1. Open the exact canonical unit before reading the research cards; the cards test bounded claims and do not replace the source text.
    2. +
  2. Read support and dissent as claim-specific contact. A source may assent to one component while challenging another.
    3. +
  3. Compare source quality, relevance, method, and stated boundary. Never treat citation counts as a vote.
    4. +
  4. Use the two-sided coverage floor to expose each Rights Article to serious challenge, not to manufacture symmetry where evidence quality differs.
    5. +
+

Coverage floor: Every Rights Article carries at least one reviewed support claim and one reviewed dissent claim. This proves contact with both directions of inquiry; it does not prove truth, falsity, balance, or comprehensive coverage.

+
+
+

Publication requirements

+
    +
  1. Identify the exact canonical unit or project claim.
    2. +
  2. Record source title, authorship, date, stable identifier, and retrieval date.
    3. +
  3. Separate direct findings from editorial inference.
    4. +
  4. Label stance through review, not keyword sentiment.
    5. +
  5. Preserve contradictory high-quality evidence.
    6. +
  6. Mark retractions, corrections, and stale data.
    7. +
  7. Keep implementation evidence separate from theoretical validity.
    8. +
+
+
+

hmmm

+

The version-controlled research ledger now provides two-sided contact for every Rights Article, but the reviewed corpus remains an opening tranche rather than a comprehensive literature review.

+
diff --git a/tests/research-ledger.test.mjs b/tests/research-ledger.test.mjs index 6f82b38..9988dd7 100644 --- a/tests/research-ledger.test.mjs +++ b/tests/research-ledger.test.mjs @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -// Usage: run through `npm test`; add claims only with source ids, limitations, reviewed metadata, and a bounded Article Lab record. +// Usage: run through `npm test`; every Rights Article must retain at least one reviewed support and dissent claim, while mixed and limit records preserve conditional evidence. // Evidence boundary: validates provenance and coverage structure, not the truth of every source claim or application. import test from 'node:test'; import assert from 'node:assert/strict'; @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ test('research ledgers parse and claims resolve to reviewed sources', async () = } for (const claim of claims) { assert.ok(['support', 'dissent', 'limit', 'mixed'].includes(claim.stance)); + assert.ok(claim.status && claim.claim); assert.ok(labUnitIds.has(claim.article), `claim ${claim.id} is not attached to a Rights Article Lab record`); assert.ok(Array.isArray(claim.source_ids) && claim.source_ids.length > 0); for (const sourceId of claim.source_ids) assert.ok(sourceIds.has(sourceId), `unknown source ${sourceId}`); @@ -50,6 +51,9 @@ test('research ledgers parse and claims resolve to reviewed sources', async () = assert.ok(Array.isArray(record.worst_practices) && record.worst_practices.length >= 4); assert.ok(Array.isArray(record.best_practices) && record.best_practices.length >= 4); assert.deepEqual(Object.keys(record.applications), requiredDomains, `${record.unit_id} must preserve the shared domain order`); - assert.ok(claims.some(claim => claim.article === record.unit_id), `${record.unit_id} needs reviewed research contact`); + const articleClaims = claims.filter(claim => claim.article === record.unit_id); + assert.ok(articleClaims.length > 0, `${record.unit_id} needs reviewed research contact`); + assert.ok(articleClaims.some(claim => claim.stance === 'support'), `${record.unit_id} needs reviewed support`); + assert.ok(articleClaims.some(claim => claim.stance === 'dissent'), `${record.unit_id} needs reviewed dissent`); } });