← Artificial Intelligence (demo) · [ ONCITE ]

The truth engine

For every citation on this spine, OnCite re-read the cited paper's actual conclusions next to the citing paper's conclusions and asked one question: does the new claim really stand on the old one? Each edge gets a relationship type and a verdict. Low extension scores are where a field's received wisdom is thinner than it looks.

grounded · 0 — the citing use traces to what the cited work established black hole · 1 — leans on something the cited claims never establish circular · 0 — the support loops back on itself

cites as background × 1

HOW EACH CITING PAPER USES ITS SOURCE — ELEVEN RELATIONSHIP TYPES, COUNTED ACROSS THE SPINE

cites as background citation black hole

extends 10/100

What was established — «“The Status of Brain in the Concept of Mind”» (1952)

C1 · Philosophy should be restored to its earlier and rightful basic role in medical education.

C2 · Medicine's focus on accumulating facts has come at the expense of reflection and interpretation of its broader role in knowledge.

C3 · The concept of the 'whole' patient, integrating physical and mental aspects, should be central to medical practice.

What was claimed on top — «Sir John Carew Eccles, A.C. 27 January 1903 – 2 May 1997» (2001)

C1 · Sir John Eccles had a remarkable and outstanding impact on the neurosciences for more than six decades.

C2 · Eccles' contributions to synaptic mechanisms and neuronal organization remain foundational to brain research.

C3 · Eccles' administrative roles at ANU and the Australian Academy of Science were significant.

The read: Citing paper discusses Eccles' neuroscience contributions without linking to the cited paper's philosophical claims about medicine or mind-brain integration. If you were about to cite the newer paper for this point — check the older one first; the support isn't there.