Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-27
The participant counts, UK setting, recruitment methods and data-collection period provide useful context for interpreting the study. They do not by themselves specify a governance mechanism or consequential safeguard.
Does this challenge the goal?
In-scope gap
Participant and recruitment details help readers judge the reach of evidence relevant to citizen-facing deliberation; the question does not contest the exploration’s goal.
The supplied records report study population, recruitment approaches and timing, but do not establish full representativeness.
Why this category?
- context for interpreting evidence
The records share a source root. The evidence does not give full demographic outcomes or establish that the findings generalize beyond the studied UK participants.
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 Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.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 who participated, how the participant groups were recruited, and when recruitment or data collection took place, distinguishing the groups where relevant.
What we can say so far
The authors report 5,734 UK participants overall. Most were adult UK residents recruited through an online crowdsourcing platform as a convenience sample. The reported groups include 2,473 training participants and 2,673 evaluation participants. Separately, a 200-person virtual citizens’ assembly was recruited by the Sortition Foundation through randomized, stratified sampling intended to reflect the UK population across demographic characteristics. These group counts are not presented here as a complete breakdown of the overall total. Data were collected from January to August 2023; the assembly met for three weekly one-hour sessions. The supplied passages do not give separate recruitment dates for each group.
What remains open
- No complete breakdown reconciles the identified group counts with the reported overall total.
- Separate recruitment dates for the participant groups are not supplied.
- Response rates and demographic comparisons for the realized assembly sample are not supplied.
Conditions and limits
- The overall and group counts are reported figures, not a complete partition of the 5,734 participants.
- The assembly sampling was designed for demographic representation; the supplied passages do not establish that the realized sample was representative.
- The January–August 2023 interval is for data collection, not a stated recruitment window for each group.
- The article accounts share a source and are not independent corroboration.
Objections to consider
- The assembly’s intended demographic representation does not establish that its realized sample was representative; no supplied demographic comparison resolves this limitation. The answer therefore states the recruitment aim rather than claiming achieved representativeness.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
The study examined UK groups The experiments involved 5,734 participants from the United Kingdom and examined common ground, changes in participants’ views, how statements handled minority and majority views, and possible bias. The researchers also tested the approach in a virtual citizens’ assembly with a sample described as demographically representative of UK residents.
Reports the 5,734-person UK overall total and the virtual assembly setting.