Author summary
ā 0%1 analyzed article/video135 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Samuel Oakford results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 28.1% saturation with 152 hits. Analysis detected 444 faulty-reasoning hits from 540 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 20.6% and a BS Rank of ā 99% (68 of 6,392 authors). This Samuel Oakford is worse (more manipulative) than 99.00% of the peer group.
Samuel Oakford
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
ā 0%Vivek Chibber1%
ā 0%Sneha Dey1%
ā 0%Ideastream Public Media1%
ā 0%Megan Fan Munce1%
ā 1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
ā 99%Samuel Oakford (selected)21%
ā 100%Greg Rosenstein38%
ā 100%Siham Shamalakh43%
ā 100%Greg Miller54%
ā 100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
ā 100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 540
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

99% percentile
025507510099.0% percentile
20.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles540 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0ā€“50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 28.1%28.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 5.9%5.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 20.0%20.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 28.1%28.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Appeal to Authority: Author 28.1%, sitewide 11.1%Framing Effect: Author 28.1%, sitewide 26.9%Availability Heuristic: Author 20.0%, sitewide 9.1%Negativity Bias: Author 5.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos