Low: D5 · Analyzer Misfire
Scope: 91 pewforum.org URLs flagged by automated citation analyzer as 'advocacy_or_other'. These are Pew's own methodology documentation. Not a sourcing problem. Score adjusted manually.
Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation
The only Research-Grade report in the CID corpus. Pew conducted face-to-face interviews with nearly 30,000 adults across India in 17 languages. The methodology is fully documented, the sampling is rigorous, and the limitations are clearly stated. This is what methodological excellence looks like.
Scoring Summary
Composite score 8.3 / 10 — Research-Grade. Raw weighted score was 8.3.
Rubric v0.3.2.
Non-compensatory rules: D3 < 3 caps the score at 5.9; D6 < 7 prevents Research-Grade.
Dimension Scoring
D1–D8 · CID Rubric v0.3.2| Dim | Dimension | Score | Weight | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Definitional Precision | 9 | 12% | — |
| D2 | Classification Rigor | 8 | 18% | Adapted for survey context |
| D3 | Case Capture & Sampling | 9 | 15% | — |
| D4 | Coverage Symmetry | 9 | 15% | — |
| D5 | Source Independence | 8 | 10% | 91 pewforum.org URLs misclassified by automated analyzer |
| D6 | Verification Standards | 8 | 18% | — |
| D7 | Transparency & Governance | 8 | 5% | — |
| D8 | Counter-Evidence | 6 | 7% | Limitations in appendix only — not in chapter text |
| Composite Score | 8.3 | Research-Grade | ||
Dimension Radar
Where scoring is strongest and weakestMetrics
Denominators, self-citation, flags- Denominator Rate
- 96%112 of 117 numeric claimsShare of numeric claims that include a denominator or base rate. Low rates suggest missing context.
- Self-Citation Rate
- 4%citations from org or affiliatesHow often the report cites its own organization or close affiliates. High rates reduce source independence.
- Critical Flags
- 0of 2 total flagsFlags at "high" or "severe" severity — methodological issues that materially affect the score.
Methodology Flags
2 flags Low: D8 · Limitations Buried
Scope: Limitations discussion is substantive but located only in the methodology appendix. Not referenced in chapter introductions or executive summary.
Scoring Notes
Per-dimension evidence D1
Definitional Precision
All survey constructs operationalized via published question text in 17 languages. Validated Likert scaling for borderline constructs.
D2
Classification Rigor
AdaptedAdapted for survey context
Inter-coder reliability reinterpreted as interviewer consistency and pilot testing — both fully documented per AAPOR standards.
D3
Case Capture & Sampling
AdaptedStratified multistage area probability sample. ACS-style demographic weighting. Coverage frame stated: Indian adults 18+.
D4
Coverage Symmetry
Identical questions posed to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains. Symmetric by instrument design.
D5
Source Independence
91 pewforum.org URLs misclassified by automated analyzer
Pew Charitable Trusts funding disclosed. No advocacy positions on India's religious politics. 91 self-citations are methodology documentation — not a sourcing problem.
D6
Verification Standards
AdaptedMicrodata available on formal request through the Pew Research Center archive. Under the revised D6 criteria (v0.3.1), a documented formal request process satisfies the verification standard. Data is not available for open download, but the archive process is publicly documented and consistently honored.
D7
Transparency & Governance
Funding disclosed in front matter. AAPOR disclosure published. Full 17-language questionnaire archived.
D8
Counter-Evidence
Limitations in appendix only — not in chapter text
Mode effects, non-response bias, and geographic variation are discussed in the methodology appendix but not surfaced in chapter introductions where most readers engage.
Citation Ecosystem
0 escalations · 1 trackedHow this report's findings have been cited or applied after publication. Severity reflects the gap between what the report establishes and how it was represented.
Additional Citations Tracked (1)
Academic researchers
Scope: Nationally representative survey of Indian adults 18+, fieldwork 2019–2020
Generally cited accurately. Occasional omission of fieldwork date (pre-COVID) when using results to describe present-day attitudes.