Keyword summary
⁠75%2 analyzed articles/videos1,570 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chinese AI Models results contain 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.5% saturation with 589 hits. Analysis detected 4,774 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,710 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (16,131 of 35,675 keywords). This Chinese AI Models is worse (more manipulative) than 54.80% of the peer group.
Chinese AI Models
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
⁠0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
⁠0%Running Back1%
⁠0%Javian Hawkins1%
⁠0%Atlanta Falcons1%
⁠0%Anthony Romano1%
⁠55%Chinese AI Models (selected)4%
⁠100%Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%Mike Lewis60%
⁠100%Joni Balter60%
⁠100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 4,710
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

55% percentile
025507510054.8% percentile
3.1% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

KeywordSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Keyword 12.5%12.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 3.3%3.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 10.8%10.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 4.4%4.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 2.6%2.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Keyword 0.5%0.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 2.5%2.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Keyword 0.6%0.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 2.1%2.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Keyword 3.1%3.1%

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%Framing Effect: Keyword 12.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 10.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 4.4%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 9.3%, sitewide 8.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 6.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 3.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 3.7%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 4.3%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 4.0%Slippery Slope: Keyword 3.8%, sitewide 1.7%Unattributed Quote: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 3.1%Begging the Question: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 1.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 2.9%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos