Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-27
Knowing that sample sizes, exclusion rules, and primary analyses were reportedly preregistered helps readers assess the study’s evidential basis. The supplied records do not expose the plans or establish whether the analyses followed them, so this is supporting context rather than a material governance design specification (s-habermas-machine-00ff72fbe15171b6; s-habermas-machine-78caffe60e91acaf).
Does this challenge the goal?
None identified
This asks what study procedures were preregistered; it does not contest the handbook’s goal or scope. Evaluation transparency is already within the definition’s testing remit.
The evidence reports the authors’ account of preregistration but does not supply the registration record or compare it with the completed analyses.
Why this category?
- Useful background on evaluation transparency
- Evidence limitation is explicit
The records share one source root. The preregistration claim is reported by the authors; the available evidence does not show the registered document or adherence to it.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Tests, stop conditions and unresolved work →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
Identify the preregistered plan elements and which studies the authors said the registration covered.
What we can say so far
The authors report that they preregistered sample sizes, exclusion criteria, and primary analyses for all evaluation experiments.
What remains open
- The supplied text does not include the registration records, their detailed contents, or a comparison with the final analyses.
Conditions and limits
- This states what the authors reported, not an independent verification of the registration.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Evaluation plans were preregistered The authors report that sample sizes, exclusion criteria, and primary analyses for all evaluation experiments were preregistered.
Directly reports the preregistered elements and that they covered all evaluation experiments.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Read full source: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation →
supports
Plans set in advance The authors say they preregistered sample sizes, exclusion rules, and primary analyses for all evaluation experiments.
Reports the same plan elements and study coverage; it is not independent corroboration.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Read full source: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation →
context
Analysis methods The authors report using preregistered exclusion procedures and statistical models that account for variation among participants and groups. For each analysis, they used the most detailed random-effects structure the available data allowed. They used ordered-response models for rating-scale answers and two-sided tests for reported significance tests.