What the evidence labels mean
A familiar scientific concept and a new proposal can look equally authoritative on a page. These labels help you tell them apart.
Established Concept
A concept with recognized use in academic or professional literature. Source monitoring is one example. Researchers may still disagree about its mechanisms, measurement, or applications.
Emerging Concept
A term used in research or professional discussion whose definition varies across fields. Synthetic media is labeled this way because its boundaries depend on the context.
Proposed Term
A working definition offered by this project, such as synthetic imprinting. The label makes no claim of scientific acceptance, priority, or ownership of the phrase.
Hypothesis
An explanation or relationship that could be tested. For example, reality-model drift asks whether repeated synthetic experiences might change everyday expectations over time. That relationship is not established here.
Speculative
An exploratory idea with too little evidence to treat as a finding. Speculation can generate questions, but it should not be reported as something research has demonstrated.
Term status and evidence support are different
Term status describes the use and standing of a name. Evidence for the claims describes the kind of support cited on that particular page and how far it extends. An established name does not make every claim about it established.
Each term page now gives these two assessments separately. The evidence description is an editorial reading of the selected sources, not a systematic review, a numerical quality score, or an external expert assessment. It may change when sources or claims change.
- Experimental or field evidence
- A study measured outcomes under specified conditions. Look at its comparison groups, participants, measures, and follow-up before applying the result elsewhere. One successful experiment does not establish universality.
- Research synthesis
- A review or research-based account brings findings together. Its scope and selection of studies matter; “review” does not automatically mean a systematic review or meta-analysis.
- Conceptual framework
- A paper organizes ideas or proposes an explanation. A useful framework may guide tests without establishing every prediction it makes.
- Technical definition or specification
- A source describes a system, method, or agreed vocabulary. A technical capability does not establish a psychological effect on users.
- Indirect evidence
- Sources concern adjacent ideas but do not test the exact formulation used here. The connection is an editorial interpretation.
- Not established for this proposal
- The selected sources do not validate the site’s proposed construct or relationship. This is a limit on what this reference can support, not proof that the proposal is impossible.
For example, source monitoring has an established name and a research framework with empirical applications. Content Credentials has a technical specification, which does not prove that every credentialed claim is true. Reality-model drift remains an unestablished hypothesis in this reference.
What does site terminology mean?
Some entries give a working definition used by this reference. Synthetic memory and hyperreal exposure are examples. Related research can inform a proposal without validating that proposal as a distinct scientific construct. We do not claim ownership or first use of these phrases.
How a label is chosen
For term status, we consider documented usage and the standing of the definition. For evidence support, we consider the source type, its relevance to the specific claim, and the limitations it reports. These judgments are recorded separately; neither is inferred automatically from the other.
Can a label change?
Yes. Better evidence may support, narrow, or challenge an idea. A proposed term may also turn out to be unnecessary. See the methodology for the review process, or suggest a correction.