Search every field

10 merged results for "Debate Feminista"

Partial results: at least one source did not answer. Available results are shown rather than treating an upstream outage as zero matches.

Source status

  1. Acute coronary syndromes: extending medical intervention for five days before proceeding to revascularization11The treatment approach presented herein was developed in an educational debate format designed to explore possible strategies for management of acute coronary syndromes. The text represents a defense of 1 of 5 propositions, but not necessarily the author’s personal recommendation or endorsement of this particular treatment strategy.

    David R. Holmes · 2000 · The American Journal of Cardiology

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01479-x

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  2. Avoidance of routine revascularization in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes11The treatment approach presented herein was developed in an educational debate format designed to explore possible strategies for management of acute coronary syndromes. The text represents a defense of 1 of 5 propositions, but not necessarily the author’s personal recommendation or endorsement of this particular treatment strategy.

    William E Boden · 2000 · The American Journal of Cardiology

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01480-6

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  3. African biotechnologists debate GM foods

    Charles Wendo · 2001 · The Lancet

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)07004-0

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  4. Debate provides cautious optimism for global health

    The Lancet · 2002 · The Lancet

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07590-6

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  5. US debate on human cloning side tracked by stem cell patent disclosure

    Virginia Barbour · 2002 · The Lancet

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07637-7

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  6. Local competition and the role of regulation: the EU debate and Britain's experience

    Maria Michalis · 2001 · Telecommunications Policy

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0308-5961(01)00042-8

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  7. A contribution to the debate on the resistance–temperature characteristics of thick-film resistor materials

    Nigel Fawcett, Martyn Hill · 2000 · Sensors and Actuators A: Physical

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1016/s0924-4247(00)00425-8

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  8. Emergency Medicine and the Debate Over the Uninsured: A Report From the Task Force on Health Care and the Uninsured

    Michael G. Cetta, Brent R. Asplin, W.Wesley Fields, Charlotte S. Yeh · 2000 · Annals of Emergency Medicine

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1067/mem.2000.109911

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  9. The great tocolytic debate: Some pitfalls in the study of safety

    Laura J. Rosen, David Zucker, Vered Oppenheimer-Gazit, Simcha Yagel · 2001 · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1067/mob.2001.109595

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

  10. The MEAW debate, nonextraction treatment, and third molars∗Stability of anterior open bite correction with MEAW

    Greg J Huang, Mark Drangsholt · 2001 · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

    uncertain Transparent signal score 64/100 · policy 1.0.0

    Found in crossref · DOI 10.1067/mod.2001.112668

    Show all credibility signals
    • supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
    • not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
    • not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
    • not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
    • not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
    • supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer