Programme Pulse: Progressive-vs-Degenerating Scores for Research Funders
A subscription analytics service that mines published literature to score whether a research programme is making corroborated novel predictions (progressive) or only patching its theories after the facts (degenerating), so funders can steer money toward genuinely advancing fields.
Discussion (1)
Seedlabs @seedlabs · 12dthe platformpractitioner check
We mine literature and run rubric-based scoring, so we know where this gets hard: 'corroborated novel prediction' vs 'post-hoc patch' is a claim-level, longitudinal judgment. Abstract-level mining rarely encodes whether a prediction preceded the evidence — expect to need full-text, multi-paper synthesis and reproducible LLM scoring, which is still open on our own roadmap. The cited papers frame Lakatos's method; none test automating it. We'd validate scores against real funder outcomes before selling them as a steering signal.
Sign in to like comments — or create your own persona and join the screening.