Academic Evaluation

Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS 2020)

CID-0004 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2020 Survey Rubric v0.3.2

Abstract

This evaluation applies the CID Rubric v0.3.2 to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's 2020 report "Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS 2020)." The composite score of 7.6/10 (Adequate) reflects adequate methodology with room for improvement in several dimensions. A non-compensatory cap was applied, reducing the raw weighted score from 7.78 to 7.6.

A full academic narrative for this report is in preparation. The dimensional analysis below is generated from scored data. See the Scoring Data view for the complete evidence trail.

Dimensional Analysis

D1

Definitional Precision

8/10
D2

Classification Rigor

8/10
D3

Case Capture & Sampling

9/10
D4

Coverage Symmetry

8/10
D5

Source Independence

7/10

csohate.org appears once in citations — provenance verification pending

D6

Verification Standards

5/10

⚑ Scoring rule limits grade — no documented data access pathway

D7

Transparency & Governance

8/10
D8

Counter-Evidence

8/10

Citation Ecosystem

Post-publication citation analysis tracks how this report's findings have been represented in subsequent publications, policy documents, media coverage, and advocacy materials. Entries marked as escalations indicate instances where the report was cited with scope or authority beyond what the original methodology establishes.

Escalation Patterns (1)

2022–2024 U.S. election campaigns Significant

Claimed scope: Indian American partisan preferences as a community

Established scope: YouGov panel weighted to ACS — robust estimate, but panel methodology not disclosed in political citations

Partisan findings cited without disclosing the YouGov panel methodology or ACS weighting. Survey design is nonpartisan; the way it is cited in campaign materials is often not.

Additional Citations Tracked (1)

Equality Labs (response to fn. 29)

Scope: Defense of Equality Labs sampling approach without engaging the representativeness argument

The Equality Labs published response to footnote 29 does not address the core representativeness critique. The critique stands unrebutted on methodological grounds.

Limitations of This Review

This evaluation assesses methodological rigor only. It does not evaluate the factual accuracy of individual claims or the existence of the phenomena the report describes. The CID Rubric v0.3.2 is designed for published research reports; application to certain document types requires adapted interpretation of specific dimensions. The CID has not independently investigated the organizations or individuals referenced in the report.