Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37579154›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Estimating conflict losses and reporting biases.

Benjamin J Radford, Yaoyao Dai, Niklas Stoehr, Aaron Schein, Mya Fernandez, Hanif Sajid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Benjamin J RadfordPublic Policy Program, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.ORCID 0000-0002-8440-0655
Yaoyao DaiDepartment of Political Science & Public Administration, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-331X
Niklas StoehrDepartment of Computer Science, ETH Zürich, Zürich 8092, Switzerland.
Aaron ScheinDepartment of Statistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.
Mya FernandezIntelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.
Hanif SajidPublic Policy Program, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.ORCID 0009-0007-6769-9484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the number of casualties and fatalities suffered in militarized conflicts is important for conflict measurement, forecasting, and accountability. However, given the nature of conflict, reliable statistics on casualties are rare. Countries or political actors involved in conflicts have incentives to hide or manipulate these numbers, while third parties might not have access to reliable information. For example, in the ongoing militarized conflict between Russia and Ukraine, estimates of the magnitude of losses vary wildly, sometimes across orders of magnitude. In this paper, we offer an approach for measuring casualties and fatalities given multiple reporting sources and, at the same time, accounting for the biases of those sources. We construct a dataset of 4,609 reports of military and civilian losses by both sides. We then develop a statistical model to better estimate losses for both sides given these reports. Our model accounts for different kinds of reporting biases, structural correlations between loss types, and integrates loss reports at different temporal scales. Our daily and cumulative estimates provide evidence that Russia has lost more personnel than has Ukraine and also likely suffers from a higher fatality to casualty ratio. We find that both sides likely overestimate the personnel losses suffered by their opponent and that Russian sources underestimate their own losses of personnel.

Indexed as

Military PersonnelWarfareBiasHumansRussiaUkraineBayesian statisticscasualtiesnews biasopen-source datawar

Identifiers

PMID37579154
PMCPMC10450422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.