idchkg
An Unflattened Identity and Change Knowledge Graph

cancellation test test

concept · 3 mentions

A test measuring choice reaction time through cancellation tasks

Defining properties

Perspectives

Claims grouped by the voice that makes them.

William H. Ukers (author)

  • cancellation test shows retardation at small doses
    assertsneutralsource: coffee-pg28500
    Cancellation Ret.
    judge verdicts (2)
    • groundedness 1.00 pass — The claim is directly stated in the table. Row 8 (Cancellation) clearly shows 'Ret.' (retardation) under the 'Small Doses' column, exactly matching the subject, predicate, and object of the claim.
    • qualifier_fidelity 1.00 pass — All qualifiers are faithful to the passage. The claim correctly identifies that the cancellation test (row 8) shows retardation (Ret.) at small doses, as stated in the table. The viewpoint as 'author' is appropriate since the passage presents this as a direct factual finding rather than attributing it to a named source. The stance 'asserts' and sentiment 'neutral' accurately reflect the clinical, non-evaluative presentation in the table. The time qualifiers are correctly null as no temporal information is provided. The context is appropriately empty as the passage does not restrict the claim to a particular sense or role. The quote 'Cancellation Ret.' appears verbatim in the passage and directly supports the claim.

table

  • cancellation test shows standardization at large doses
    assertsneutralsource: coffee-pg28500
    Ret. ? St.
    judge verdicts (4)
    • groundedness 0.70 pass — The passage shows in row 8 (Cancellation) under 'Large Doses' the notation 'St.' which according to the table legend indicates standardization. The claim accurately reflects this direct data from the table, though 'shows standardization at' is a minor rewording of what the 'St.' abbreviation represents.
    • qualifier_fidelity 0.30 fail — The quote 'St.' does not appear verbatim in the passage in relation to the cancellation test (item 8). The passage shows '?' for medium doses and 'St.' for large doses in the cancellation row, but the quote provided is incomplete and does not support the full claim. Additionally, the viewpoint qualifier 'author' is problematic - the passage is a data table with no attributed source or named author making assertions; the claim should reflect that this is observational data from the table itself, not an author's interpretation. The context qualifier is empty when it should specify that this relates to the cancellation test specifically (which it does in the subject, but context should document any restrictions from the passage - here there are none, so empty is acceptable). The core issue is the incomplete/non-verbatim quote and the incorrect viewpoint attribution.
    • groundedness 1.00 pass — The claim is directly supported by the table. Row 8 (Cancellation test) shows 'St.' (standardization) under the 'Large Doses' column, exactly as stated in the claim and cited in the provided quote.
    • qualifier_fidelity 1.00 pass — All qualifiers are faithful to the passage. The viewpoint correctly identifies the source as 'table' (a data presentation format rather than a named author or source). The stance 'asserts' is appropriate for factual table data. Sentiment 'neutral' matches the objective presentation. Time qualifiers are correctly null as the passage provides no temporal scope. Context is empty as appropriate since no contextual restriction is stated. The quote 'Ret. ? St.' accurately appears in row 8 (Cancellation) under the Small Doses, Medium Doses, and Large Doses columns respectively, and 'St.' (standardization) at large doses supports the claim.