Search every field
Partial results: at least one source did not answer. Available results are shown rather than treating an upstream outage as zero matches.
Source status
- crossref
- europe-pmc
- datacite
- pubmed
- doaj
- zenodo
- hal
- arxiv
- doab
A person-centred model of HIV nursing care: translating principles into practice
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- not scoredDOI registered: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredDOI resolves: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Alignment Philosophies in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Revisiting Vacuum Simulations Using Modern Classical Protein Force Fields.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Biomechanical analysis of the tucked front somersault on vault among elite junior female gymnasts.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Biomechanical exploration of cushioning and stability in auxetic lattice midsoles during jump landing.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Précis of <i>Inducing Immunity? Justifying Immunization Policies in Times of Vaccine Hesitancy</i> <sup>1</sup>.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Making Veterans Visible in Australia's Alcohol and Other Drug Services: Leveraging the Alcohol and Other Drug National Quality Framework.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Associations of multiple core stability aspects with drop jump performance.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
A Comparative Analysis of AI HRM Governance Approaches Across African Countries: Continental Patterns and Divergences.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
A comparative study of the insurer's liability in Iran versus leading countries (France, Japan, and the United States), including its legal challenges
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Effect of Stiffeners on Contribution of Peripheral Frame and Seismic Behavior of Stiffened Steel Plate Shear Wall
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Vladimir Solovyov: The Philosophy of the Last Classic. Lecture
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Modeling turning performance of Inconel 718 with hybrid nanofluid under MQL using ANN and ANFIS
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Temporal signatures of prediction error reveal external forces on an embodied robot.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Comparative Study of Structural and Quality Controls for Grouted Sleeve Connections in Different Standards: Connection Technology, Design, and Mechanical Requirements
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Protecting the Autonomy of Patients with Severe Mental Illness Through Psychiatric Advance Directive Peer-Facilitation
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Mathematical Materiality: a status report
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
ASEPTIC MANUFACTURING AND CONTAMINATION CONTROL OF BIOMEDICAL MICRO/NANOROBOTS AT THE LIMIT Aseptic Process x Contamination Monitoring x Functional Integrity This 770-page Research Working Edition develops a falsification-oriented, nonclinical architecture for reducing and localizing microbial, endotoxin, particle and cross-batch contamination while preserving biomedical micro/nanorobot material and task function. It distinguishes low observed counts from qualified control and treats burden, sampling recovery, assay interference, transport, source localization, uncertainty and independent function as separate scientific objects. The monograph contains 30 mathematical research plates, 82 chapters, 410 single-page investigations, 200 differentiated Research Gates and 33 genuinely distinguishable Phoenix Answer Embryos. Its minimum demonstrator blind-injects three contamination routes into a closed microfluidic line and tests whether an independent team detects and localizes them before release. Unqualified recovery, unlocalized contamination, a nonclosing material balance or function loss is a hard veto. This is a prospective scientific architecture, not an executed clinical or regulatory study. It does not claim in-use sterility, in-body safety, therapeutic efficacy, regulatory approval or clinical benefit. DOI-linked publications support component methods and boundaries; they do not validate the integrated F26 system. Technical profile: 770 pages; approximately 161,936 English words; 30 formula families; 82 chapters; 410 single-page studies; 200 Research Gates; 33 Phoenix Answer Embryos; 22 DOI records; navigable bookmarks; sixfold QA. Author: Feng Cheng-en (33) x Starli STARLI Research Institute XXXIV / Flagship 26 Join the STARLI Research Community Explore more than 100 interdisciplinary research themes and follow the evolving STARLI Research Gate community: https://zenodo.org/communities/starli-research-gate/
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
STARLI | F111–F120 / 300 Flagship 13 Fission · Volume II · Collective Microrobotics, Fault Resilience and Trustworthy Autonomy Author: 33 | Nonclinical Research Design Working Edition v1.2 | English Zenodo Ten-Volume Overview This collection presents ten prospective research-design monographs on distributed micro/nanorobotic collectives. Research Unit I (F111–F115) addresses limited communication, collaborative quantum sensing, consensus breakdown, dynamic task reassignment and joint human-machine authority. Research Unit II (F116–F120) examines misinformation propagation, graceful degradation, custody and mission integrity, cross-platform coordination and trustworthy autonomy. The ten studies propose falsifiable bench-scale experiments; none asserts demonstrated swarm intelligence, clinical efficacy or certified autonomous safety. The ten English working editions comprise 7,770 PDF pages in total: 300 prospective mathematical research plates, 820 chapter openings, 4,100 independently paginated study sections, 2,000 Research Gates and 330 Phoenix Answer Embryos. Each Gate proposes six annotated research dimensions: causal mechanism, measurable witness, blinded falsifier, rival explanation, stopping boundary and successor interface. The counts describe publication architecture, not experimentally verified results or independently certified scientific originality. The Ten Research Directions F111 Nanorobotic Collective Limited Communication Control At The Limit — Investigates safe collective recovery when peer-to-peer messages are delayed, lost or limited. The proposed endpoint is time to independently confirmed safe recovery after communication loss, measured in seconds. Tests compare matched-actuation single-agent control against local coordination; task redundancy is a rival explanation. Failure to regain a known-safe state is a stopping condition. F112 Microrobotic Collective Quantum Sensing Collaboration At The Limit — Proposes cooperative field sensing against independent calibrated reference measurements. Its candidate endpoint is normalized field-estimation error; the atlas also tracks communication load. A fully observed centralized controller is the comparator, and additional agent count may explain apparent improvement. Violation of registered safety invariants rejects the proposed collaborative sensing benefit. F113 Nanorobotic Collective Consensus Failure At The Limit — Examines whether distributed agreement remains justified when hidden partitions or corrupted information change the swarm's evidence. The candidate endpoint is the false-consensus acceptance fraction, with energy per task retained from the atlas. Fixed rules under equal energy challenge the proposal; leaked global tracking is a rival. Confidence maintained during a hidden partition triggers rejection. F114 Microrobotic Collective Dynamic Mission Reconfiguration At The Limit — Studies bounded mission reassignment following changing tasks, link loss or unavailable agents. The proposed witness is independently verified mission-reassignment success fraction, while selective abstention remains an atlas outcome. Matched total actuation controls for redundancy masquerading as adaptation. Failed return to a registered safe state is the hard stop. F115 Nanorobotic Collective Joint Human-Machine Oversight At The Limit — Tests whether collective task completion remains inside explicit human authorization and machine safety constraints. Authority-compliant task success fraction is the proposed endpoint, complemented by atlas task-completion records. A centralized full-state controller is the comparator; larger teams alone may explain any gain. Crossing a safety invariant overrides apparent task efficiency. F116 Microrobotic Collective Misinformation Propagation At The Limit — Addresses the spread of incorrect shared state estimates through a microrobotic collective. Its candidate observable is false-belief propagation rate, accompanied by the atlas consensus-error outcome. Equal-energy fixed behavior challenges the claimed mechanism, while hidden external state tracking may bias comparisons. Persistent confident agreement under concealed network partition is a rejection condition. F117 Nanorobotic Collective Graceful Degradation At The Limit — Evaluates whether a damaged or partially disconnected swarm retains bounded task capability rather than failing abruptly. Completion fraction under preregistered fault severity is the proposed witness; the atlas also records collision rate. Single-agent operation with matched total actuation tests whether redundancy alone explains resilience. Inability to return to a known-safe state stops the trial. F118 Microrobotic Collective Mission Integrity At The Limit — Proposes end-to-end custody and task-state audits for collective sampling missions. The measurable candidate is the valid sample-and-mission custody fraction, with coverage entropy retained from the original atlas. A centralized full-state controller anchors comparison; increased agent number can mimic benefits. Any violation of physical safety invariants invalidates the release claim. F119 Nanorobotic Collective Cross-Platform Collaboration At The Limit — Studies verified recovery and coordination across dissimilar robotic platforms with distinct sensing and control interfaces. Recovery latency in seconds is the proposed measurement and atlas recovery time is preserved. Matched-energy fixed rules are the baseline; external tracking that reveals global state is a rival. Confident consensus during a hidden communication partition is a stop condition. F120 Intelligent Nanorobotic Collective Trustworthy Autonomy At The Limit — Investigates whether autonomous collective decisions remain within defined authority and physical safety envelopes. The candidate witness is unsafe autonomous release fraction, alongside atlas communication load. A matched-actuation single-agent baseline tests purported benefits of collective intelligence versus redundancy. Failure to recover a known-safe state disqualifies the autonomy claim. The publication title follows the corrected source-introduction identity. Scope, Falsifiability and Evidence Boundaries These nonclinical research-design working editions are limited to traceable materials, calibrated sensing, physically bounded actuation, authorized reference systems and laboratory or simulated validation. Proposed endpoints supplement, rather than silently replace, the original atlas outcome fields. No laboratory results are reported. Equal-resource baselines, blinded disturbance tests, preservation of failed runs, raw evidence provenance and mandatory stop rules are required before claims of superiority. The source batch passes scripted PDF-structure checks; derivation-level physics, causal distinctness, individual DOI-to-claim relevance, exhaustive visual review and specialist peer review remain incomplete. Selected Established Methodological References Yang & Zhang (2021) · Motion Control in Magnetic Microrobotics: From Individual and Multiple Robots to Swarms · DOI 10.1146/annurev-control-032720-104318 | Farivarnejad & Berman (2022) · Multirobot Control Strategies for Collective Transport · DOI 10.1146/annurev-control-042920-095844 | Seo, Paik & Yim (2019) · Modular Reconfigurable Robotics · DOI 10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023834 These established methodological references are reproduced from the supplied batch evidence register, not evidence that STARLI-specific hypotheses have been experimentally verified. Detailed source-to-claim matching and independent bibliography review remain outstanding. Join the STARLI Research Community Explore more than 100 interdisciplinary research themes and follow the evolving STARLI Research Gate community: https://zenodo.org/communities/starli-research-gate/ We do not need to know which door future generations will choose to open. We only hope that when they open it, they will find a little light to guide their way.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
STARLI | F101–F110 / 300 Flagship 13 Fission · Volume II · Distributed Microrobotic Coordination, Safety and Sample Integrity Author: 33 | Nonclinical Research Design Working Edition v1.2 | English Zenodo Ten-Volume Overview This collection presents ten prospective research-design monographs in micro/nanorobotic collective systems. Research Unit I (F101–F105) examines self-organizing sampling, load balancing, safe-stop behavior, local sensor fusion and asynchronous control. Research Unit II (F106–F110) investigates competing tasks, adaptive routing, contamination control, collaboration reliability and heterogeneous-agent coordination. The editorial aim is to define independently testable, resource-bounded questions, not to claim demonstrated autonomous performance or clinical efficacy. The ten English working editions comprise 7,770 PDF pages: 300 prospective mathematical research plates, 820 chapter openings, 4,100 independently paginated study sections, 2,000 Research Gates and 330 Phoenix Answer Embryos. Each Gate has six annotation categories: causal mechanism, measurement witness, blind falsifier, rival explanation, stopping boundary and successor interface. Architecture counts are not evidence of experimental validation or independently certified scientific originality. The Ten Research Directions F101 Nanorobotic Collective Self-Organization Sampling At The Limit — Explores whether locally coordinated sampling can preserve sample identity while keeping collision exposure within a bounded envelope. The proposed witness is harmful collision frequency [events/(agent*min)], alongside the atlas collision-rate outcome. Equal-energy fixed-rule behavior is the baseline; leaked global tracking is a rival explanation. Confidence maintained despite a concealed communication partition rejects the claim. F102 Microrobotic Collective Load Balancing At The Limit — Studies how task redistribution changes spatial coverage without relying on unmetered additional actuation. Coverage spatial entropy [nat] is the proposed endpoint, linked to the original coverage-entropy outcome. A single-agent controller with matched total actuation tests whether the apparent gain comes merely from redundancy. Failure to recover a known-safe state ends the trial. F103 Nanorobotic Collective Safe Stop At The Limit — Defines a test of independently observed transition to a safe state after a collective disturbance. The witness is time to demonstrably safe state [s], preserving the atlas recovery-time field. A fully observing centralized controller provides the comparator; increased agent count is an alternative cause of faster recovery. Crossing any registered safety invariant terminates evaluation. F104 Microrobotic Collective Local Sensor Fusion At The Limit — Examines whether local sensor exchange improves accepted mission decisions under limited communication. Communication traffic per accepted task [bytes/task] is a proposed measurement, with the original communication-load outcome retained. Equal-energy fixed rules challenge the fusion benefit; unacknowledged global state tracking is a competing explanation. Hidden partitions test whether confidence remains appropriately bounded. F105 Nanorobotic Collective Asynchronous Control At The Limit — Investigates decision timing when individual robots update at different rates rather than using a single synchronized command. Total metered energy per completed task [J/task] is the proposed observable, preserving the atlas energy-per-task field. The control comparison matches total actuation to a single-agent system; redundancy without true adaptation is the alternative. Failure to regain a known-safe state requires stopping. F106 Microrobotic Collective Task Competition And Coordination At The Limit — Proposes experiments in which agents must choose between competing tasks under bounded control authority. Selective abstention and service coverage [fraction] is the candidate measurement, anchored to the atlas abstention outcome. A fully observing centralized controller is the strong comparator, with simple agent-number advantage as a rival. Breach of registered safety invariants invalidates any coordination gain. F107 Nanorobotic Collective Adaptive Path Planning At The Limit — Tests whether locally coordinated route changes improve mission completion when obstacles or task geometry vary. Task-success fraction under equal energy [fraction] is the proposed endpoint, linked to the original task-completion measure. Fixed behavior at the same energy budget is the baseline; leaked external tracking may falsely suggest adaptation. Concealed network partitions probe erroneous collective confidence. F108 Microrobotic Collective Contamination Control At The Limit — Addresses a different physical constraint: preserving sample separation during repeated collective handling. The new proposed endpoint is cross-sample chemical carryover [mass fraction], while the source atlas retains consensus error. A matched-actuation single-agent control tests claimed collective benefit; redundancy alone may explain task performance. Inability to return to a known-safe state is a mandatory stop. F109 Nanorobotic Collective Collaboration Reliability At The Limit — Examines whether distributed cooperation can remain safe and reproducible across adverse trials. Hazardful collision frequency [events/(agent*min)] is the candidate observable alongside the original collision-rate outcome. A fully observing centralized controller is the baseline, and additional robots are a rival source of apparent performance. Safety-invariant crossing overrides aggregate success statistics. F110 Microrobotic Collective Heterogeneous Agents Coordination At The Limit — Studies coordination across agents with different sensing, mobility or task roles, while preserving traceable collective outcomes. Coverage entropy under heterogeneous roles [nat] is the proposed witness. Equal-energy fixed behavior is the baseline; outside tracking that silently supplies global state is a competing explanation. Unjustified high confidence during a concealed partition rejects the proposal. Scope, Falsifiability and Evidence Boundaries These are prospective nonclinical research designs restricted to authorized bench-scale, ex-vivo or synthetic reference settings with traceable sample identity, calibrated measurement and bounded actuation. Proposed endpoints are editorial additions and do not replace original atlas outcomes. No laboratory experiments or clinical results are reported. Matched energy and actuation, blinded disturbances, full negative-trial records and noncompensable safety stops are needed before any advantage claim. PDF structure and archive integrity can be checked automatically, but derivation-level physics, causal independence, source-to-claim DOI alignment and specialist review remain incomplete. Selected Established Methodological References Yang & Zhang (2021) · Motion Control in Magnetic Microrobotics: From Individual and Multiple Robots to Swarms · DOI 10.1146/annurev-control-032720-104318 | Farivarnejad & Berman (2022) · Multirobot Control Strategies for Collective Transport · DOI 10.1146/annurev-control-042920-095844 | Seo, Paik & Yim (2019) · Modular Reconfigurable Robotics · DOI 10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023834 These existing methodological citations are reproduced from the source archive evidence register; they do not validate the STARLI-specific proposed systems. Identity-to-claim mapping for each flagship, including additional source DOI candidates, has not been exhaustively verified. Join the STARLI Research Community Explore more than 100 interdisciplinary research themes and follow the evolving STARLI Research Gate community: https://zenodo.org/communities/starli-research-gate/ We do not need to know which door future generations will choose to open. We only hope that when they open it, they will find a little light to guide their way.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
RESEARCH COLLECTION / FLAGSHIPS 81–90 OF 90 Classical Qi, Mind-Body Inquiry & Trustworthy Biomedical Evidence at the Limit STARLI Acupuncture Trilogy | F81–F90 of 90 | Author 33 | Research Design Working Edition v1.0 This ten-volume research-design collection tests classical qi-blood descriptions against microcirculatory measurements, mind-body attention effects, qigong breathing and bioelectric artifacts, volitional neurofeedback, and externally asserted qi phenomena. Its second research unit explores provenance-aware acupuncture knowledge graphs, acupoint nano-interfaces, causal pattern models, matched-resource quantum sensing and cross-generational evidence platforms. Cultural concepts are hypotheses and labels, not proven energies or therapies. Two five-theme research units contain ten English 777-page working editions: 300 conditional mathematical research plates, 820 chapter openings, 4,100 separately paginated investigations, 2,000 Research Gates and 330 Phoenix Answer Embryos. Designs call for blinded perturbations, calibrated physical witnesses, optimized conventional baselines and explicit stop policies. This collection reports candidate research protocols, not completed results or demonstrated clinical effects. Research Unit I · F81–F85 / Classical Claims & Blinded Physiology F81 QI-BLOOD PHILOSOPHY AND HUMAN MICROCIRCULATORY PHYSIOLOGY AT THE LIMIT — Tests whether preregistered qi-blood labels improve held-out microvascular perfusion prediction beyond temperature, anatomy, pulse and motion. Blinded non-needle cues and matched warm stimuli challenge ordinary thermal and cardiovascular explanations. Tissue stress, unblinded-only gains or calibration failure are hard stops. F82 MIND-BODY UNITY PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL REGULATION AT THE LIMIT — Separates randomized attention and feedback effects from autonomic changes caused by posture or covert muscle activation. Crossed blinded feedback, hidden replay and synchronized ECG, EMG and posture controls challenge interpretation of subjective sensation as a distinct mechanism. Unidentifiable effects or consent failure halt claims. F83 QIGONG BREATHING AND HUMAN BIOELECTRIC REGULATION AT THE LIMIT — Compares qigong-labeled breathing with ordinary paced breathing under matched respiration, electrode geometry and motion. Masked rate matching and exchanged session labels test whether sweat activity, respiratory rhythms or contact impedance account for surface EDA/ECG differences. Uncontrolled artifact prohibits special-energy inference. F84 VOLITION, MIND-BODY UNITY AND INTELLIGENT NEUROFEEDBACK AT THE LIMIT — Challenges apparent intent-related information using live versus timestamp-matched replayed neurofeedback, yoked sham feedback and identical EEG bandwidth. Cross-validated information gains must survive face-EMG, breathing and expectancy controls. Label leakage, unsafe feedback or ignored human stop authority veto interpretation. F85 EXTERNAL QIGONG CLAIMS, CLASSICAL QI THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC FALSIFIABILITY AT THE LIMIT — Subjects alleged remote effects to sealed target schedules, signal isolation, independent randomization and double-blind instrument readings. Shams, shielded blanks and equal operator schedules confront electromagnetic, acoustic, thermal and experimenter leakage. Nonblind-only effects or selective exclusions trigger refusal; remote qi remains unestablished. SECOND RESEARCH UNIT / SOURCE FIDELITY & SUCCESSOR SCIENCE Research Unit II · F86–F90 / Knowledge, Causality & Continuity F86 CLASSICAL ACUPUNCTURE KNOWLEDGE GRAPHS AND TRUSTWORTHY MEDICAL AI AT THE LIMIT — Measures source-attribution error when classical manuscripts are converted into provenance-typed biomedical knowledge graphs. Blinded conflicting translations, swapped citations and out-of-era terms test edition drift and label leakage against a source-linked retrieval baseline. Unsupported upgrades from historical narration to medical fact must be rejected. F87 INTELLIGENT NANO-ACUPUNCTURE AND CLASSICAL ACUPOINT KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION AT THE LIMIT — Compares sensing at predeclared classical points against anatomy-matched same-layer control locations. Concealed point/nonpoint coordinate substitutions confront contact geometry, skin thickness and mismatched historical annotations; independent anatomical registration is the comparator. No stable point-specific improvement or sensor integrity stops the claim. F88 AI CLOSED-LOOP ACUPUNCTURE AND CAUSAL VALIDATION OF CLASSICAL PATTERN MODELS AT THE LIMIT — Uses approved retrospective randomized data to ask whether classical pattern labels add transportable causal response information beyond symptom severity. Blinded rater disagreements and sham/reference contrasts challenge expectancy and confounding; common-support and sensitivity checks are mandatory. There is no authorized autonomous acupuncture intervention. F89 QUANTUM SENSING, NANO-ACUPUNCTURE AND CLASSICAL LIFE PHILOSOPHY AT THE LIMIT — Tests matched-resource readout precision using NV-diamond sensing and an optimized conventional instrument with identical distance, bandwidth, integration time and calibration standards. Blinded sensor swaps challenge photon-dose and geometry advantages. No reproducible independent precision gain, or claims of novel meridian energy, warrant refusal. F90 CLASSICAL ACUPUNCTURE PHILOSOPHY AND FUTURE INTELLIGENT BIOMEDICAL CIVILIZATION PLATFORMS AT THE LIMIT — Tests whether a successor laboratory can replay frozen accept/reject decisions after a hardware or software generation change. Concealed vendor-metadata swaps confront semantic lookalikes, circular citations and operator rescue. Human-readable provenance ledgers and FAIR archiving are baselines; lost source identity or human veto is a hard stop. Physical Scope, Falsifiability & Evidence Status The work is restricted to consented non-invasive observation, inert phantoms, passive instruments, approved historical datasets, document-based source analysis and offline simulation. No anatomical qi conduit, external qi transfer, mind-to-matter coupling, quantum physiological force or treatment efficacy is established. Sensor calibration, independent ground truth, blinded denominators, source provenance and human stop authority remain essential. Research lineage is the STARLI 90 Flagship Master v1.3, with source-provided methodological DOIs 10.5281/zenodo.23480803, 10.5281/zenodo.23486020 and 10.5281/zenodo.23318840. These mark editorial ancestry, not experimental confirmation. External bibliographic metadata checks are limited; individual formula-to-endpoint fit and relevance require independent specialist review, particularly the provisional doubly robust expression in F88. Research Gates & Quality Assurance Boundary The source batch QA reports ten 777-page PDFs, zero exact duplicate Gate questions and zero exact duplicate full six-part annotations. Cross-book lexical screening records a maximum nearest-neighbor similarity of 0.8832, with 93 cases at or above 0.80 and none at or above 0.90. Such automated checks do not establish independent causal mechanisms, scientific novelty, clinical safety or experimental validation. Join the STARLI Research Community Explore more than 100 interdisciplinary research themes and follow the evolving STARLI Research Gate community: https://zenodo.org/communities/starli-research-gate/ We do not need to know which door future generations will choose to open. We only hope that when they open it, they will find a little light to guide their way. 🌈🚪✨
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Review of Rafael Ziegler’s (2020). Innovation, Ethics and Our Common Futures: A Collaborative Philosophy
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 4 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Leveraging Law as the Principal Instrument of Public Health Policy
uncertain
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- 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.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.