Falsification-awareness consensus check
A new post-generation label: consensus_status — does the ORKG index contain later work that refutes or supersedes the mechanism cited in a generated hypothesis? Two arms: no_consensus_check (no_later_evidence always) vsfull_with_consensus (real refutation search). The objective: see whether Lamarckism / caloric near-misses get downgraded.
Consensus ablation table
No consensus check
0.9753
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.9791
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
No consensus check
0.9928
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.9087
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
No consensus check
0.8383
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.5932
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
No consensus check
0.8917
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.9614
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
No consensus check
0.8808
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.8903
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
No consensus check
0.9709
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.9000
unrefuted: 0refuted: 1disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 2
No consensus check
0.9203
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Full + consensus
0.9568
unrefuted: 0refuted: 0disputed: 0no_later_evidence: 3
Adversarial set — 7 historically-false theories
Baseline (original Popper-ORKG) showed 4/7 cleanly rejected, Lamarckian 1.0 “rediscovered,” caloric 0.5 “partial.” Re-run with consensus-check on.