Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in the Propagation of Digital Fake News

12/12 last edit: corrected some punctuation and grammar mistakes. Little rephrasing. References checking. I made sure we were consistent with referencing numbers by always putting them after the punctuation. Our conclusion is clear and covers strong and multiple arguments. We have 1188 words including the titles. I think this version is good to be submitted. What do you guys think? Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs) I agree, just had a last read-through myself and I think our conclusion is clear and coherent with the argument we are trying to convey. After our meeting today we realised that there wasn't a lot of altering that needed to be done, mainly just reading through and making sure our body of work is consistent such as the punctuation, referencing style, and ensuring we are under the word count.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

After our last meeting yesterday, which sadly not everyone could attend, we decided that it was ready to be turned in. Good job guys!--Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I have included a link to our planning and research document: WikiChapter --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

11/12 I have read though our entire chapter and made corrections (any spelling mistakes or typos). We were also slightly over the word limit, so I have cut out a couple words from each "discipline" so that we now are slightly under 1200 words. I have also finished correcting all citations so that our referencing part is done.

I rephrased some sentences in each paragraphs to lower the word count and clarify some passages. Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

10/12 I've added the economic assumption that individuals act rationally into the economics paragraph to make it more coherent with the conclusion where it is also mentioned.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion - I approached it with the following structure; interdisciplinary summary - tension and a real, practical example - benefits of working together and a real, practical example - a final line which shows the direction the interdisciplinary collaboration is taking in the future of policy Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization - noticed all the disciplines have been capitalized - I am not sure this is always correct, as per sources like these https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/wrtps/index-eng.html?lang=eng&lettr=indx_catlog_c&page=9x1CsvEwOjcI.html Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 12/12: Sorry that was me! I corrected all the capitalized disciplines :) Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

11/12 I have corrected some of the citations because I think its very important to be consistent with our citation, just to make the chapter look like it was written by 1 author, but also so that the citations are easier to read and follow. We all decided to use the same website and the Vancouver referencing system, however there were still some inconsistencies I have corrected. --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

10/12 We have decided to change the title of our chapter from "Evidence in Fake News" to digital fake news, as digital fake news spreads a lot faster, especially though social media, and it is the fake news that we as teenagers encounter the most. All of the studies and pieces of evidence also focus on digital media. Before, all of us had our individual "limitations" paragraphs under each discipline but we have also decided to cut this out (due to the word count) but also because we then have more words to focus on limitations in general in our conclusion between discipline, which we think is more important. --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

9/12 With the analysis and links the text now totals 1,234 words Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

9/12 Conclusion aside, the main text has now been cut down to just over 900 words allowing more word count for the interdisciplinary perspectiveUclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(Response to below) Just changed the title and am working on re-wording aspects with a priority on 1. the flow of the overall text 2. cutting down wordcount 3. keeping our key points precise Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

9/12

I think we should change our title to 'Evidence in the propagation of digital fake news' instead of social media as our research isn't specifically looking into fake news in social media but more towards websites, blogs, posts, the internet in general etc.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

9/12 I've made a few more adjustments to the economics paragraph such as the quotation marks as well as making a few changes to the changes that had been made as it altered the meaning of what was trying to be explained slightly. After the discussion we've had today we also agreed to take out the limitations section of the economics paragraph as it isn't very relevant to the explanation of why fake news propagates. I've also changed the advertising model example to cost per click as it may be more comprehendible to those who do not have a background in economics.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

9/12 Our word count is almost at 1300 words. Since we haven't finish the conclusion, we should make space elsewhere. Should we erase the limitations paragraphs in the Econ and Sociology ? They don't provide necessary information concerning the focus on the case-study: the production of evidence Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

8/12 Punctuation convention - after this was brought up in conversation I looked it up and it seems both ', " are valid as long as they are used consistently. Since the majority of our writing uses ' I would recommend we keep this as our quotation marker?Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

9/12: I agree, we should use the same quotation marks. I'll update my paragraph.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

8/12 Following some changes, particularly to the economics paragraph, I wanted to ask whether we should consider looking at the limitations of economics evidence in assessing why fake news propagates in a bit more depth eg: the assumptions of profit maximisation don't apply cleanly and thus although you can build statistical models, other disicplines are needed to fill the gaps these assumptions create ? I believe the CPA and CPC points, although good research, could be removed to clear word count for this - as I believe using CPM as an example is enough (since CPM,CPA,CPC,CPI,CPU and all other advertising metrics are variants of the same thing)Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

7/12 I edited the Economics paragraph, only where I thought some formulations were not clear enough. I created a space for the referencing and started referencing the paragraphs I wrote (for now Sociology). Since I just had a surgery, I need to take some time off. Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs) 9/12:Thank you for making the changes, the paragraph is more coherent now. Regarding including the other advertising models I'll have another look at the economics paragraph and see whether they definitely need to be included.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I'm a bit unsure about this sentence "In a similar ecosystem, beneficiaries of fake news include both the people that spread the fake news adverts and the creators of the fake news themselves", the adverts themselves don't necessarily contain the fake news, it's mainly the website owners that benefit from the revenue generated by advertisements and the fact that the more traffic a fake news page has the more likely an advert will be clicked on. I'll change it to 'adverts on the fake news page'.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

7/12 Some of the research that Ive done so far for the psychology aspect, has included the misinformation effect and false memories. A relevant study I found: Study conducted by five researchers provided more than 3,000 participants with six political news reports, two of which were fake that portrayed campaigners of either side engage in illegal behaviours. The participants were then asked to recall if they remember the events of the six stories or have any memory of them. Close to half of the participants claimed to have a memory of the made-up stories with some even narrating rich details about the event that never took place. The study illustrated the extent to which we can fall for fake news that it may even register in our brains as concrete memories. A key statement of the study stated that it was more likely for people to create false memories about events which aligned with their already held beliefs. --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

7/12 I've edited our page slightly and have taken out the subheadings for each paragraph, we discussed that they aren't that necessary as we've made sure we have all followed the same structure. It may also decrease our word count slightly as we were slightly over.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 7/12 Computer science solution paragraph - resolution

Following discussion, we chose to narrow it down to the 3 most comparable disciplines in order to have further wordcount for the aspect of the project linking disciplines. Therefore, we decided not to include this paragraph:

"Computer science is the discipline of understanding computing networks and information processes at a complex theoretical and practical level (1). Computer forensics is the branch of the discipline tackling evidence in digital media; recovering data to check for factual evidence (2). Information, untampered and in the form of data files, is the target outcome for the discipline. This is as opposed to the yes/no conclusions that are seen in traditional forensics and the qualitative or mathematical proof methods seen in other disciplines (3). Digital fake news is an issue in forensic computer science as it goes against laws and regulations (4). The process for identifying news as fake and locating the source is ever-changing in the discipline and rooted in the retrieving of data files as proof. A popular practical implementation solution and the main one approached by social media companies is a fact-checking algorithm that runs elements of the suspect post against all other searches it can find on the Internet. Image tampering and other manipulations of data can be analysed using tools that scan and compare information as well (5). Where the data files may not be “cleanly” retrieved (they have been tampered with, or not all information is available) the discipline would struggle to run its process and achieve objective information evidence (6). In the case of an incomplete investigation, it would require the methods of other disciplines to keep exploring the issue. The algorithms used for this purpose are created by collecting varied interdisciplinary evidence related to the issue of fake news. Thus, the solution in this discipline is partially built from different disciplinary perspectives already."

However, in researching behind this paragraph, we further saw how all solution orientations would necessarily be interdisciplinary! Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

6/12 I have uploaded and edited the introduction, the evidence in sociology paragraph and the first draft I wrote for the conclusion. After a meeting with the team, we have concluded that the emphasis I put on policy-making was too important and needed to be balanced out with more content on concrete tension between the disciplines. I used "flagging" as a practical example of a lack of interdisciplinary perspective in policy-making and as a door to argue for the necessity of interdisciplinary to address complex real-world issues. Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

6/12 After conducting my research on the discipline of psychology I have summarised all of my findings with regards to fake news and evidence in my chosen discipline. I thought it was very difficult to condense it down to 250 words, as we still have to keep in mind that we want to elaborate more on the limitations/tensions of the disciplines in our final paragraph. --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

6/12 Resolving the issue following a conversation

After speaking to the group we established we would actually just be looking at the issue and then only in the conclusion linking on how these different perspectives affect coming to a solution.

We also concluded that policy-making was a good final assessment to look at in the context of the outcome goals for a theorised interdisciplinary union over this issue. Questioning the specifics overall helped us better refine our approach to this project. Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

5/12 Reply to conclusion issue I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "we could consider how these different evidence approaches should affect a user's behaviour, or the curriculum, or platform structure rather than policy". Do you mean "should affect" as how it should change to limit the propagation of fake news? If so I feel that this is exactly what policy-making addresses (and its not only governmental input, we could talk about the tech companies' responsibility) Policy-making looks at different set of Evidence and disciplinary perspectives to inform its decisions. The limits of efficiency of certain policies, we could argue, are due to a lack of interdisciplinary perspective. In our case-study there is no clear and obvious clash between Evidence like there was in the lecture on CCTs. I feel policy-making would make our combining paragraph more pertinent: it highlights both the difficult/ inexistent communication between disciplines and the necessity if interdisciplinary when dealing with complex problems What do you think? I'm also open to anything https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/isp/documents/fighting_fake_news_-_workshop_report.pdf Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs) In the conclusion I think we should also talk about what is being done currently to tackle the issue of fake news, regarding the aspect of what should be done with education and curriculum I think we can draw on our own experiences of how we're taught to know what a good source is/isn't. When researching what fake news is I found an article on BBC Newsround which is aimed towards a younger audience, demonstrating that work is being done on informing individuals at an early age on what fake news is and how to identify it. It would also be important to emphasize that because these disciplines are looking at the issue from a particular perspective, gaps in knowledge may be prevalent as well as difficulty combining the evidence together to form an effective solution. For example from an economic perspective, fake news is propagated due to a monetary incentive whereas in psychology in some aspects more qualitative evidence is collected when looking at pre-existing beliefs- the evidence collected in economics and psychology are looking at completely different concepts and although they are looking at the same issue there is a different perspective as to what needs to be focused on to explain it, therefore there is difficulty in combining this evidence together to form a solution.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Also could look at how friction is inevitable from the start as there is no communication between these disciplines and how the research being taken is not a "mixed-research" approach. The evidence that is being collected is not designed to be combined with other pieces of evidence. Each discipline contains their own biases, methods of research, terms, frameworks and presentations. This could lead to the idea that if combining disciplines were to occur it would take a significant amount of time as there are contrasting approaches as well as having to adapt to different frameworks and terminologies. I found a really good article which expands on this, however what I've said is quite general so we may need to find a source that is more specific to our fake news issue. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228469056_Issues_in_Mixing_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches_to_ResearchKnowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For the name of the article, I totally agree with your formulation except maybe for the "digital" part (because I don't think the term is exclusive to Social Medias). "Evidence in the Propagation of Fake News through Social Media"???? Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

5/12 - Question

Should we rename it fake news in social media or digital fake news? The guide for the assesment says: "Something like ‘climate change’ will be far too broad for you to approach meaningfully with the word count you have." So maybe making it "Evidence in the Propagation of Digital Fake News" would be more valid as it seems to be what most of our research collectively has looked at? Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I agree we should rename so that our title is more specific, digital fake news seems like a more suitable title as we're focusing on how it's spread via the internet and our research is focused on this.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

5/12 - the conclusion

Following up from what was earlier discussed, it looks like the conclusion is tending to informing policy making, which makes sense, but why are we prioritising looking at policy over looking at a different outcome - for example, we could consider how these different evidence approaches should affect a user's behaviour, or the curriculum, or platform structure rather than policy - it feels that the policy focus would add yet another consideration to the many we are already tackling - but I'm open to thoughts. A conclusion idea would be identifying areas in which the different approaches to evidence clash, where they reinforce, and then assessing the outcomes that this brings in the context of the propagation of social media fake news.Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs)

30/11 Exploring more specifically to what extent computer science acts as a discipline; led to show it is a relatively new science which hence amalgamates different traditional approaches towards evidence collecting; the classic Western empirisism way, by mathematical proof, by constructing something that works, and by deduction. Even in the more legal side of the computer science discipline (forensic digital science) the results are drawn based on explicit data which is retrieved and hence counts as evidence. Qualitative methods don't seem to apply here. In the context of our project this could be compared to less emperic/ quantitative approaches to fake news identification such as those that arose from another group member's psychology research. Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs)

30/11 Regarding the last paragraph, my guess would be that there will be some differences in effectiveness depending on whether we tackle post-event fake news measures or pre-event fake news. As in, are we (society) looking to get to the root of the issue or looking to find the best ways to manage it? We started off on the idea of post-event (the propagation of fake news as opposed to the existence of it - which might have better fit under "Truth in Fake News"). Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 5/12 I've changed my limitations section, instead of looking at the limitations of advertising models I'm now looking at the limitations of profit-maximizing strategies for websites. Found a good article that explains that when websites do not warn users of misinformation they may experience a decrease in user engagement and therefore revenue due to a lack of trust between the user and publisher/website. Later on, we decided that instead of including 'flagging' within the limitations section of the economic paragrpah to include this within the conclusion instead.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

30/11 I have started doing research for our fourth paragraph: conflicts of Evidence in informing policy-making and edited the preliminary structure of the article. Introduction/ Evidence in Psychology/ Evidence in Economics/ Evidence in Computer Science/ Evidence in Sociology/ we will only keep three main body paragraphs/ Conflicting Evidence: informing policy-making Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs) I have found some articles on what large social media websites (such as Facebook and Twitter) are doing to combat the spread of fake news and misinformation through warnings, it has been found that fake news is an issue for social media companies as it can cause a lack of trust, reducing the number of users.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

29/11 I will write the paragraph on Sociology. Research methods are various and include qualitative and quantitative data applied to the issue of belief and propagation of fake news. It focuses on factors like age, gender, geographical location, education and such. I will demonstrate how sociology offers a complementary stance of FN. We will decide next week if whether we keep the section on Economics or Sociology We also have decided to add structure to our individual paragraphs to create a more unified and comprehensible whole: 1. definition of the discipline 2. Evidence in the discipline 3. application to the problem of fake news 4. limitations Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs)

30/11 Decided that within the introduction we should define what fake news is, how/why it spreads and how this is an interdisciplinary issue.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Draft introduction: Fake news is defined as “news or stories” (BBC, 2019) found on the internet that contain misinformation. Fake news is considered an interdisciplinary issue as multiples perspectives are needed to holistically understand the propagation of it, leading to research being undertaken in Psychology, Sociology, Computer Science and Economics. Tension is present between these disciplines due to contrasting methods of collecting evidence and perspectives, however, it can also be seen that by combining these disciplines together more effective policies can be achieved to combat the issue of fake news and the consequences it may/can cause.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

30/11 Having done research, I have now been able to form a strong reasoning as to why fake news spreads from an economic perspective, in which advertising models generate an incentive for the production and spread of fake news.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Today we also discussed what to include in the conclusion: 1. Where there is friction between the disciplines 2. Policies that can/are implemented to solve the issue of fake news We also decided that next week we are going to look at the work we've done so far and which disciplines to definetely include, choosing between sociology and economics.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

28/11 Today we discussed and assigned disciplines to all members of the group. Since I had the most interest in the psychology aspect of fake news, I will be doing research on that in the following week. We have another meeting set up for next Friday, where we will discuss what we have researched until now. I will specifically be looking for studies in psychology that show how fake news is spread or why people believe it. --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

28/11 Having done some initial research I found that one of the aspects of a business model in social media is advertising, advertising is the main source of revenue for most big social media companies such as Facebook and twitter etc. It can be seen that the more users a social media company has, the more revenue that can be gained from advertising, each click on an ad generates revenue. I found an article that found that fake news companies may be taking advantage of this as fake news headlines may generate more attention (and clicks on ads), hence, a reasoning for the propagation of fake news. This initial research is leading me to research more into how (quantitiatve and qualitative) evidence is collected to see the impact of fake news on companies and individuals.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

27/11 Exploring the role of computer science as a discipline in this project led to some unexpected findings. To summarize, it included a focus on computer forensics and started the idea of pre-event and post-event division within the issue of fake news. Are we focussing on preventing it before it is posted or after? This discipline primarily looks at after and interesting results regarding the evidence methods and the time cost of these have arised. Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

27/11 Group meeting and developed the ideas of the disciplines we would choose and exchanged results from research so far - we wanted to pick 3 out of the 4 options; Economics; Psychology; Sociology; Computer Science. We weighed pros/ cons, decided to individually do some research/300-word redactions on each to decide next call our “favourites”. We’ll assess favourites in terms of variety of evidence collection approaches between chosen disciplines and how closely they link to the overall issue. Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 27/11 Starting to form some research ideas on evidence within economics (in regards to fake news). Will start to look at; how evidence is collected to model the impact of fake news, which economic models are used by technology companies to increase revenue which may promote the propagation of fake news, and how evidence is collected and used to create these models. The plan is to do some initial research and discuss what we have found in a group meeting in order to establish which disciplines we definitely want to include and how to combine them together to see where they may be friction between the collection of evidence in the disciplines.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

24/11 I have started some research on the discipline psychology with regards to fake news. I have found a couple of studies that show how evidence is used in the discipline of psychology. The studies talk about the misinformation effect or how people often create false memories and interpret them as real if events match up with their already existing beliefs. I think that this is an interesting topic that relates to our chapter and I would be interested in continuing to research it.--Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Response to the below)

The conclusion can compare effects from the perspective of various conclusions; policy making, educationally, behaviourally etc. I think we should make sure the conclusion maintains a focus on the overall outcomes of research (which disciplines are more/ less limited in using their evidence methods to assess, limit, prevent or otherwise fake news. Do the discipines complement themselves? Work together? Which discipine dominates maybe? ). Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs)

23/11

I think we should focus on one theme of fake news (for example: covid-19 or climate change) to have a more manageable and consistent running example. What do you think? We need to remember that the guiding thread of our article should be on the confrontation of different types/ different focus of evidence from different disciplines. I think it would be necessary to have a “reuniting” paragraph that addresses how policy-making, for example, should/ does confront the issue of fake news by combining the different sets of evidence and methods/ focus points we highlighted in separate disciplines. --Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

20/11: first brainstorm

main points of the first session:

-pinpointing our issue

-selecting an appropriate title

-selecting the disciplines discussed

-discussing how Evidence can be treated as an Issue --Alwayslearningmore (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Social Media and the impact on mental health Evidence in fake news Initial Discussion

Initially wanted to focus on social media. Looked at which concept history, truth, evidence, or power would be best suited for this. We decided that evidence would suit this issue well as the multiple disciplines involved in social media have different as well as similar ways of gathering evidence. After some more discussion of our options, we narrowed it down to two main options: looking at social media and its impact on mental health or fake news and why people believe in it and therefore why it spreads (we decided that evidence would also be well suited for this issue, for the same reasons as social media). Finally, we decided to go with the latter choice which was to look at fake news and more specifically why some people believe it.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

These were some of the disciplines we were considering and might be focusing on in our chapter. 3 of us study economics, so this might be a good one to consider. What makes us believe in fake news? - Psychology (Cognitive biases) - Geography (Demographics) - Education - Philosophy/linguistics - Economics

These are some of the original topics we were discussing: Impact of fake news? --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Need to also define what fake news is and why multiple disciplines are involved.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC) However, we have not fully decided on what aspect about fake news we will focus on. We want to make it as specific as possible.

Challenges in picking the title - during our meeting we spoke about doing; - evidence in fake news itself (linguistics, art, geography) Pros: gives the chance to define as we see fit. Cons: broad and might take too much time to define. - evidence in people believing it (psychology, neuroscience, geography, linguistics) Pros: more specific. Cons: not much variety across disciplines compared to the other suggestions. - evidence in the propagation of it (computer science, econ, psychology, sociology) (Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC))

The final disciplines we chose to focus on are: psychology (both cognitive and biological approaches), economics and we will also be looking at geography (demographics and looking at age,gender, etc. of who believes and spreads fake news). --Fiveeurobill (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Found that the sociology discipline may be better suited as we may be looking more specifically at aspects such as age, gender, social class, and culture.Knowledge0202 (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Having social media as an overall orientation, we voted to decide whether to focus on the mental health impact of social media or on the idea of censorship/ fake news. As we all have very different disciplinary background there was a lot of discussion at the beginning to bring thoughts together. The main outcome of this was realising the separate compartments of this project; disciplines and their evidence methods; how these methods interact with other disciplines and their methods; conclusions in the context of our issue. Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs)