Topic summary
⁠24%1 analyzed article/video277 analyzed words
BS Summary: These AI In Science results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 8.8% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 316 faulty-reasoning hits from 831 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (4,136 of 15,535 topics). This AI In Science is worse (more manipulative) than 73.40% of the peer group.
AI In Science
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 831
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

73% percentile
025507510073.4% percentile
4.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles831 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 5.9%5.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 4.5%4.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 8.8%8.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 3.6%3.6%Middle GroundSitewide 0.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Topic 1.8%1.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 7.1%7.1%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 3.4%3.4%

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: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 26.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 8.8%, sitewide 5.3%Optimism Bias: Topic 7.1%, sitewide 6.0%Halo Effect: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 6.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 4.5%, sitewide 0.8%Anchoring Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 4.0%Middle Ground: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos