Validity Assessment of Statements from Public Health Liberation

Summary

This analysis evaluated the validity of statements from the document "Public Health Liberation - An Emerging Transdiscipline to Elucidate and Transform the Public Health Economy" to assess their truthfulness, logical coherence, or ethical soundness. Grok extracted and assessed 30 statements, covering factual (e.g., lead poisoning statistics), theoretical (e.g., public health economy anarchy), and ethical claims (e.g., Morality Principle). ChatGPT evaluated 14 statements, focusing on similar themes (e.g., cigarette smoking, gentrification, anarchy). One statement overlapped between the two sets, showing full agreement in scoring. Using a rubric scoring from 1 (Invalid) to 5 (Highly Valid), Grok’s results showed 23.33% of statements as highly valid, 53.33% as strongly valid, and 23.33% as moderately valid, indicating a robust foundation for the document’s claims. ChatGPT’s 14 statements included 28.57% highly valid, 42.86% strongly valid, 21.43% moderately valid, and 7.14% weakly valid, reflecting a slightly broader range but similar credibility. The document’s empirical claims are well-supported, while theoretical and ethical claims require further empirical validation, highlighting PHL’s potential as a transdisciplinary approach to health equity.

Methods

Statement Extraction

Dr. Christopher Williams asked ChatGPT and Grok identical questions to extract statements in Public Health Liberation theory that can be assessed for validity, "Extract all statements that can be assessed for validity." ChatGPT extracted 14 and Grok extracted 30. Two statements overlapped. Then instructed to "develop a rubric and score schema for assessing validity...then evaluate each of the statements from your prior response. Describe what form of validity you're using and why it's the most appropriate. Use highly valid (5), strong validity (4), moderate validity (3), weak validity (2), invalid (1)."

Grok extracted 30 statements from the document, selected for their testability or debatability, including factual claims (e.g., "There are almost 3000 U.S. neighborhoods with lead poisoning rates at least twice as high as during the peak of Flint’s lead crisis"), theoretical assertions (e.g., "The public health economy is anarchical"), and ethical/normative statements (e.g., "The 'Gaze of the Enslaved' is a valid ethical standard"). ChatGPT provided 14 statements, covering factual (e.g., "Cigarette smoking is associated with about 80%–90% of lung cancer deaths"), theoretical (e.g., "The public health economy is defined by a state of anarchy"), and normative claims (e.g., "Many studies on Black Americans are unethical"). One statement was identified as a near-exact match: Grok #9 ("The public health economy is anarchical, meaning highly fragmented and discordant, which reproduces health inequity") and ChatGPT #5 ("The public health economy is anarchical and reproductive of inequity"). ChatGPT’s remaining 13 statements were distinct, covering topics like smoking and social movements not in Grok’s list.

Rubric Development

A scoring rubric assessed validity on a 1–5 scale:

• 1 (Invalid): Clearly false or unsupported.

• 2 (Weak Validity): Minimal support or logical flaws.

• 3 (Moderate Validity): Some support but not fully convincing.

• 4 (Strong Validity): Well-supported with minor gaps.

• 5 (Highly Valid): Robustly supported by evidence or logic.

Forms of validity included:

• Empirical Validity: For factual claims, verified against data or records.

• Logical/Theoretical Validity: For theoretical claims, assessed for coherence and explanatory power.

• Ethical/Normative Validity: For normative claims, evaluated against ethical frameworks.

The form was chosen based on each statement’s nature.

Assessment Process

• Grok: Evaluated all 30 statements, assigning scores and forms (Empirical, Logical, Ethical) with justifications based on evidence, logic, or ethics.

• ChatGPT: Evaluated 14 statements, assigning scores and forms (Empirical, Logical/Theoretical, Normative) as provided in the ChatGPT table, with justifications reflecting evidence or reasoning.

• The shared statement was compared for score and validity form agreement. ChatGPT’s 13 unique statements were analyzed separately to summarize their validity distribution but not integrated into the primary table, which focused on Grok’s 30 statements.

Data Analysis

Scores were tallied to calculate the number (n) and percentage (%) of statements at each validity level for both Grok (30 statements) and ChatGPT (14 statements). Agreement was assessed for the shared statement. Descriptive statistics summarized the distribution of validity levels and forms for both sets.

Results

Validity Distribution

Grok’s 30 Statements:

• Highly Valid (5): 7 statements (23.33%) (#3, #6, #8, #11, #19, #20, #27).

• Strong Validity (4): 16 statements (53.33%) (#1, #2, #4, #7, #9, #12–14, #17, #18, #22, #24–26, #28, #30).

• Moderate Validity (3): 7 statements (23.33%) (#5, #10, #15, #16, #21, #23, #29).

• Weak Validity (2): 0 statements (0.00%).

• Invalid (1): 0 statements (0.00%).

ChatGPT’s 14 Statements:

• Highly Valid (5): 4 statements (28.57%) (ChatGPT #2, #3, #9, #10).

• Strong Validity (4): 6 statements (42.86%) (ChatGPT #1, #4, #5, #7, #12, #13).

• Moderate Validity (3): 3 statements (21.43%) (ChatGPT #6, #11, #14).

• Weak Validity (2): 1 statement (7.14%) (ChatGPT #8).

• Invalid (1): 0 statements (0.00%).

Form of Validity

Grok:

• Empirical Validity: 8 statements (26.67%) (e.g., #3, #6–8), mostly scoring 4–5.

• Logical Validity: 18 statements (60.00%) (e.g., #1, #9, #12), scoring 3–4.

• Ethical Validity: 4 statements (13.33%) (e.g., #14, #21–22), scoring 3–4.

ChatGPT:

• Empirical Validity: 5 statements (35.71%) (e.g., #2, #3, #9), scoring 4–5.

• Logical/Theoretical Validity: 8 statements (57.14%) (e.g., #1, #5, #12), scoring 3–4.

• Ethical/Normative Validity: 1 statement (7.14%) (#8), scoring 2.

Agreement on Shared Statement

• Statement 9 (Grok #9 = ChatGPT #5): “The public health economy is anarchical, meaning highly fragmented and discordant, which reproduces health inequity.”

  • Grok: Score 4, Logical Validity, “Theoretical causality.”

  • ChatGPT: Score 4, Logical Validity, “Theoretical claim with some empirical backing.”

  • Agreement: Full agreement on score and validity form, with slight justification differences.

Key Findings

• Grok’s empirical statements (e.g., #6, #19) and ChatGPT’s (e.g., #2, #9) scored highest, reflecting strong evidence.

• Theoretical statements (e.g., Grok #9, ChatGPT #5) scored 3–4, indicating logical coherence but needing empirical tests.

• Ethical statements (e.g., Grok #21, ChatGPT #8) scored lower, with ChatGPT’s #8 notably weak due to lack of specificity.

• The shared statement’s agreement suggests robust evaluation of PHL’s core concept of anarchy.

• ChatGPT’s unique statements (e.g., smoking, Black Lives Matter) broaden the document’s scope, with high validity for empirical claims.

Discussion

The analysis confirms the document’s credibility, with Grok’s 30 statements showing 76.66% strong or high validity and ChatGPT’s 14 statements showing 71.43% strong or high validity. Empirical claims, such as Grok’s #19 (Black women’s leadership) and ChatGPT’s #2 (smoking statistics), are robustly supported, anchoring PHL’s real-world relevance. Theoretical claims, like the shared #9 (anarchy), are logically sound and align with political economy theories, but their causal impact on health inequity requires empirical validation. Ethical claims, particularly ChatGPT’s #8 (unethical studies), scored lowest due to overgeneralization, while Grok’s #22 (Morality Principle) showed stronger