DISCUSSION & EXTENSIONS

WHAT THIS ENABLES

Evidence‑annotated claim graphs make it possible to:

• Compare claimed mechanisms across papers in a standardized way

• Measure causal vs non‑causal evidence at the relationship level

• Study how narrative structure and novelty relate to publication and impact

LIMITATIONS / RISKS (PLAIN LANGUAGE)

• Automated extraction can miss or misclassify information.

• Evidence labels reflect how papers document claims, not whether claims are correct.

• Some fields and paper styles are easier to parse than others.

We mitigate these issues with repeated passes, stability aggregation, and validation checks, and we document robustness in the paper.

FUTURE MODULES 

• Extending concept standardization beyond JEL

• Expanding corpora beyond NBER/CEPR

• Additional validation layers and benchmarking

• Improved tooling for querying and reuse (hosted on GitHub)

COLLABORATION

• We are looking for academic, media, government or industry research partners to scale this measurement philosophy (AI for graph extraction). 

• If you are interested, reach out!