Citation Gap Checker
Free, no signup. Find claims that need a source before an answer engine repeats them, and flag dated evidence for a human re-check.
Before
“Studies show conversion rose 42% in 2021.”
After
“A 2021 study reported a 42% increase [source]” — then verify the statistic remains applicable.
Pasted content is analyzed in your browser. A URL is sent only to the protected fetch endpoint; paste content takes priority. After a successful URL check, only its domain is remembered locally.
Checks run from our server; we fetch the URL you enter and don't keep the results. The claim pass runs in your browser. Up to 25 cited URLs are sent to the bounded status checker; pasted prose is not sent. Anonymous run-level outcome counters may be used for aggregate research; URLs, domains, IPs, and identifiers are never included, and no statistic is released below 100 runs.
Sample report Deterministic local example
For “A 2021 study shows checkout changes increased conversion by 42%.”, evaluated in 2026, the engine returns one likely claim and two findings:
1 likely claim checked · 2 findings
Missing adjacent source — This claim has no adjacent outbound source link.
Aging evidence — This numeric claim references evidence at least three years old; confirm it still applies.
Both findings can be true at once: the sentence needs a source, and the source’s continued applicability needs checking.
How to use it
- Paste article text or HTML. The content extractor removes markup before sentence analysis.
- Select Check citation gaps.
- Review every highlighted sentence; use the search link as a research starting point, not as evidence.
- Add the most direct primary source beside the claim, or revise the claim when no suitable evidence exists.
Site passport Local context for this saved site
Local data
Saved targets, named lists, and recent check summaries remain only in this browser.
Rate this tool
What the results mean
- Missing adjacent source — a likely factual claim contains no URL in the same sentence.
- Aging evidence — a detected year is at least three years behind the current year.
- Broken citation / Verify citation — supported by the engine when link-status evidence is supplied, but live status is not evaluated by this page.
- No finding — no matching pattern was found; it is not an accuracy certificate.
How it works
The claim pass runs in the browser. It extracts readable blocks, splits them into sentences, and selects likely claims using explicit markers: numbers, percentages, research language, and strong superlative or absolute wording. It checks the same sentence for an HTTP(S) URL, extracts four-digit years, and sends at most 25 cited URLs to the bounded status checker. Evidence at least three years old receives a review flag. No model writes or judges the result.
Features
- Accepts plain text or HTML.
- Finds numerical, comparative, absolute, and research-style claims.
- Separates missing sourcing from aging-evidence review.
- Builds a prefilled source-search query for each finding.
- Keeps pasted content in the browser.
Limitations
Adjacency is a crude proxy: a URL in the sentence may be irrelevant, while a footnote or nearby citation may be perfectly valid but still missed. The three-year threshold is intentionally generic. The bounded status check does not read papers, assess source quality, or determine whether a citation entails the exact claim. Always verify the primary source and the claim’s scope yourself.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as a likely claim?
The checker conservatively looks for sentences with numbers, percentages, research language, or strong comparative and absolute terms such as best, largest, always, and proves. Short fragments are ignored.
Does the tool verify that a citation supports a claim?
No. It does not fetch links or interpret source material. It only checks whether a likely claim has an adjacent URL and whether dated evidence merits a new human review.
Why is a three-year-old statistic flagged?
Three years is a review trigger, not an expiration date. Some evidence remains valid for decades; volatile market, product, and behavior statistics can become stale much sooner.
Can a clean report prove an article is accurate?
No. A clean result only means the local heuristics did not find one of their known patterns. Qualitative assertions, misleading framing, and irrelevant sources still require editorial review.
Does the checker detect broken citation links?
Yes. After the local claim pass, the page sends up to 25 cited URLs to the bounded status checker. A failed status can flag a broken citation or a DOI that needs manual verification; source relevance still requires human review.
Feature requests for Citation Gap Checker
Upvote what you want most. New ideas can be submitted from the floating Feedback menu; requests appear here once approved, and the most-wanted rise to the top.
You won't be emailed about that request anymore.
Loading…
➕ Request a feature
New requests are reviewed before they appear here.
ツールについて
数値や研究調の主張、古くなった統計、人的検証が必要な引用を見つけます。
主張ごとに根拠、鮮度、引用の状態を分け、確認の優先順位を明示します。
機能
- 数値・研究調の主張の検出
- 古い統計の鮮度チェック
- 引用とURLの状態確認
- 人が検証すべき項目の優先順位
仕組み
本文を文と主張に分割し、数値、期間、因果表現、研究調の言い回しを抽出します。引用と照合し、欠落、古さ、範囲の不一致を分類して、人的確認が必要な順に並べます。
制限事項
- 検出は文章と提供された引用に基づく候補であり、主張の真偽、最新性、出典の権威性を自動保証しません。
- URLの応答、ペイウォール、リダイレクト、地域差により、検証可能性は変わります。
よくある質問
このツールは引用が正しいと証明しますか？
いいえ。確認が必要な主張と出典の候補を示します。内容と原典を人が検証してください。
統計が古いと自動で判断できますか？
日付や期間の手掛かりを検出しますが、現在の妥当性や業界の更新を保証しません。
引用のない文は必ず誤りですか？
いいえ。一般的な説明もあります。研究調、数値、強い因果主張など、根拠が重要な文を優先して確認します。