Discovery Lab Answers

The honest answer: I can’t give you a corpus-level count from what’s in front of me

The question is a good one, but it’s asking me to characterize the shape of the library — which experimental paradigm (ganzfeld, remote viewing, precognition, forced-choice card work, etc.) has the largest set of audited publications suitable for exploratory analysis. That’s a quantitative claim about the holdings, and the live site data queried for this question returned no counts by corpus and no structured evidence table. So I can’t tell you “we have N audited ganzfeld papers vs M remote-viewing papers” without guessing, and guessing a count is exactly what the audit policy forbids.

What I can do is be precise about why, and point you at where the real answer lives.

Two different things you might be asking about

• The public /references/ bibliography — this is only the works actually cited on published pages, rebuilt automatically as citations change. It is a strict subset of the underlying corpus, so it undercounts what’s available for analysis.
• The underlying grounding corpus — a structured database of thousands of primary-source documents with extracted metadata (methods, findings) indexed for retrieval. This is the thing you’d actually run exploratory analysis against, and it is larger than /references/.

Neither of those totals-by-paradigm was returned to me for this query, so any number I named would be fabricated.

What the retrieved sources here do and don’t tell you

The handful of numbered sources pulled for this question are a scattered, non-representative slice — a citizen-science anomalous-experience paper ^[1], a psi proposal/challenge paper on power analysis and auditing ^[2], a near-death-experience sentiment-analysis paper ^[5], best-practices methodology ^[4], and an off-topic 1964 periodical ^[3]. That set does not map to any single experimental corpus, and it’s far too small and heterogeneous to infer which paradigm is best-represented. It tells you nothing reliable about corpus size.

Where the real answer actually is

The audited-study holdings are organized by topic on the studies section, grouped into paradigms (Telepathy, Precognition, and so on). The most direct way to see which experimental corpus has the most locked, audited pages — and therefore the most material for exploratory work — is to browse that grouping directly:

• Studies — single-study audit pages, grouped by topic, each with per-vendor grades and lock status in the footer.

One structural caveat worth flagging for your intended use: study-audit pages are graded on a closed seven-item checklist and locked individually; they are not assembled or normalized as an analysis-ready dataset. The distinction between confirmatory and exploratory analyses is a checklist item (C3) at the page level, not a cross-corpus flag you can filter on. If you want a paradigm-level count of audited publications for exploratory analysis, that’s a query against the corpus/reference database, and I’d suggest requesting it through the site rather than inferring it from what a single retrieval surfaced.

If you tell me which paradigm you have in mind (ganzfeld, remote viewing, precognition, etc.), I can point you at the relevant topic grouping and any specific audited study pages the library holds.