Category definition
Confidence summarizes how strongly the available sources support an entry. Low, medium, and high describe evidence quality and clarity, not the value or importance of a character or system.
← Analytics overview
Evidence confidence
The curator’s recorded confidence in the evidence supporting each entry.
Calculation
Character, queer-system, and queer-reading records are counted by their single confidence value. For queer readings, confidence describes documentation of the interpretation and its context, not the truth of an identity claim.
Interpretation
Confidence is a curatorial assessment that can change when better sources are found. Compare it with research status rather than treating it as a permanent score.
Percentage base: all character, queer-system, and queer-reading records.
Includes Not recorded when values are missing.
Normally matches the record total when every field is classified.
Loading detailed analytics…
Sources and framework
Research basis for evidence confidence
These sources inform the project’s definitions and safeguards. They do not make Press Q exhaustive, peer reviewed, or free from curatorial judgment.
Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3, 2016.
Supports rich metadata, traceability, interoperability, and reuse while making the conditions and provenance of data visible.
D’Ignazio, Catherine, and Lauren F. Klein. Data Feminism. MIT Press, 2020.
Grounds the project’s attention to power, context, plural perspectives, and the limitations of binaries and apparently neutral classifications.