Overview of the results from the analysis of the citation corpus extracted from Thérapie Autisme publications

Return to the project page

This page summarizes the distribution of citation verification scores, the source types represented in the corpus, and the bibliographic elements that are most often confirmed or found to be problematic.

The greener the segment, the closer the cited information corresponds to the identified reference; the redder it is, the greater the discrepancies or potential problems in the citation.

For the bibliographies accompanying commercial tools, documents treated as primary references are displayed separately from the other references listed in each tool bibliography.

Audited citations

533

Corpus sources

  • Blog: 112 citations
  • Instagram: 183 citations
  • Study: 75 citations
  • Tool bibliography: 163 citations

Distribution of bibliographic concordance score levels between scientific citations and identified references

This chart summarizes the bibliographic concordance score between the citations collected and the scientific references that were identified. Each segment corresponds to a score category. The greener the segment, the closer the cited information corresponds to the identified reference; the redder it is, the greater the discrepancies or potential problems in the citation.

Audited citations: 533
0-29 % (107)
30-59 % (87)
60-79 % (82)
80-89 % (28)
90-100 % (229)

Score-level distribution by bibliographic element

Each bar represents 100% of the assessable citations for a given bibliographic element. The colors use the same levels as the bibliographic concordance score. Element-level scores are calculated from the comparison between the citation and the identified reference; an element that is not provided or not assessable is not counted in that element bar. Overall period: from 12/03/2025 to 13/06/2026

Authors: 533
0-29 % (116)
30-59 % (30)
60-79 % (4)
90-100 % (383)
Year: 530
0-29 % (164)
60-79 % (53)
90-100 % (313)
Title: 533
0-29 % (143)
30-59 % (72)
60-79 % (36)
80-89 % (13)
90-100 % (269)
Journal: 308
0-29 % (127)
60-79 % (4)
80-89 % (1)
90-100 % (176)
DOI: 33
0-29 % (17)
90-100 % (16)

Distribution of bibliographic concordance score levels by source type

Each column represents 100% of the citations for one source type. The colors show the same bibliographic concordance score levels as in the previous pie chart. For the three tool bibliographies, documents treated as primary references are displayed separately from the other references listed in each tool bibliography. Periods by source: BIBLIO.OUTILS: 03/06/2025 -> 27/08/2025; BLOG: 05/06/2025 -> 13/06/2026; ETUDE: 13/11/2025 -> 13/11/2025; INSTAGRAM: 12/03/2025 -> 09/06/2026

All sources

Blog: 112
0-29 % (14)
30-59 % (21)
60-79 % (15)
80-89 % (3)
90-100 % (59)
Instagram: 183
0-29 % (46)
30-59 % (36)
60-79 % (29)
80-89 % (11)
90-100 % (61)
Study: 75
0-29 % (17)
30-59 % (11)
60-79 % (20)
90-100 % (27)
Tool bibliography: 163
0-29 % (30)
30-59 % (19)
60-79 % (18)
80-89 % (14)
90-100 % (82)

Bibliographic documents for tools sold by Thérapie Autisme

CDNAA-R primary references: 6
30-59 % (1)
60-79 % (1)
80-89 % (1)
90-100 % (3)
CDNAA-R bibliography: 38
0-29 % (5)
30-59 % (1)
60-79 % (4)
80-89 % (2)
90-100 % (26)
ISPA primary references: 5
30-59 % (1)
90-100 % (4)
ISPA bibliography: 84
0-29 % (23)
30-59 % (13)
60-79 % (10)
80-89 % (11)
90-100 % (27)
PCIPS primary references: 5
0-29 % (1)
30-59 % (1)
60-79 % (1)
90-100 % (2)
PCIPS bibliography: 25
0-29 % (1)
30-59 % (2)
60-79 % (2)
90-100 % (20)

Bibliographic concordance score analysis for Instagram citations

Each square represents a reference cited in an Instagram post. The color indicates the bibliographic concordance score with the identified reference: red for low concordance, green for high concordance. The number displayed in each square is the reference ID. Overall period: from 12/03/2025 to 13/06/2026

325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507
0-29 % (46)
30-59 % (36)
60-79 % (29)
80-89 % (11)
90-100 % (61)

Distribution of lexical similarity levels between cited titles and identified titles

This chart shows the distribution of lexical similarity between the cited title and the title of the identified scientific study. Each segment groups cases into a similarity class based on the percentage range shown in the legend. The measure is the Jaccard index applied to significant words in the two titles after normalization: case, accents, punctuation, FR/EN stopwords, ASD/ASC, singular/plural, compound words and exclusion of overly generic domain words. Overall period: from 12/03/2025 to 13/06/2026

Sources analyzed: 533
Very low lexical similarity (0-29 %) (143)
Limited lexical similarity (30-59 %) (72)
Moderate lexical similarity (60-79 %) (36)
High lexical similarity (80-89 %) (13)
Very high lexical similarity (90-100 %) (269)

DOI presence and concordance analysis

A DOI absent from the citation is not a non-concordance. DOI non-concordance concerns DOI values that are provided but do not match the DOI of the identified reference. Overall period: from 12/03/2025 to 13/06/2026

Citations with or without a provided DOI

DOI not provided: 498
DOI provided: 35
DOI not provided (498)
DOI provided (35)

DOI concordance when comparison is assessable

Concordant: 16
Non-concordant: 10
Concordant (16)
Non-concordant (10)

9 DOI values were provided but not included in the assessable DOI concordance view because they were partial, not assessable, or no corresponding reference was validated.