|

Evidentia and the Genealogical Proof Standard

By

So how does Evidentia support the tenets of the Genealogical Proof Standard?

Element of the GPS
Supported by Evidentia
Reasonably exhaustive search
  • Evidentia’s Research Summary Report tallies the current breadth of cited source material in an easy to review format.
  • Evidentia’s source first approach encourages a thorough cataloguing of source material, often uncovering minor facts that might otherwise not be captured by a researcher using other software.
Complete and accurate citation of sources
  • Evidentia REQUIRES citations before a researcher can draw ANY conclusions.
  • All Evidentia reports include proper citations of source materials.
  • Evidentia’s customizable Citation Templates insures consistent citations written based on the researcher’s preferred methodology.
Analysis and correlation of the collected information
  • Evidentia requires that EVERY assertion be analyzed for quality and acknowledged with an ‘analysis’ paragraph before any conclusions can be drawn.
  • By not hard linking claims to subjects, Evidentia encourages capturing not only positive evidence, but also conflicting and even ‘missing’ evidence.
Resolution of conflicting evidence.
  • Evidentia’s Analyze Evidence screen brings all relevant assertions together in one place, encouraging the researcher to weigh the source of information and review conflicting evidence.
  • Where conflicting evidence may add confusion when included as supporting information in a standard genealogy program, Evidentia is built from the start to accept, and indeed expect, this kind of data.
Soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.
  • When analysis is complete, Evidentia unlocks a separate Summary Conclusion box for documenting the current conclusion based on ALL the evidence. The Summary Conclusion is prominently featured in Evidentia’s Genealogical Proof Report, the center piece of Evidentia
  • Evidentia’s Summary Conclusion is always presented in the context of all individual assertions, holding the researcher accountable for all the relevant information, and insuring a response that can be reviewed for credibility.

Similar Posts

The Evidentia Experiment – Progress Report #1
| | | | | | |

The Evidentia Experiment – Progress Report #1

By

Last week I posted about the Evidentia Experiment I am currently doing. The goal is to document 5 generations, starting with myself, using Evidentia. The results will then be exported into a GEDCOM file and imported into a clean RootsMagic database. This week I wanted to describe my process as well as report on my…

Evidentia Experiment – Progress Report #2
| | | |

Evidentia Experiment – Progress Report #2

By

5 Generations. 149 Proofs. The Evidentia Experiment. The goal is to document 5 generations, starting with myself, using Evidentia. The results will then be exported into a GEDCOM file and imported into a clean RootsMagic database. Making Progress I have almost finished with the third generation (my grandparents). Waiting for a couple of records from…

How to Analyze a Claim
| | | | |

How to Analyze a Claim

By

“I love Evidentia, but I am just not sure how to write an analysis.” I have heard this more than once, from users on Google+, in Google Hangouts, and at conferences. Many users feel intimidated by the analysis process, even with the help of books such as Thomas Jones “Mastering Genealogical Proofs” What I want to try…

Evidentia meets a UK BMD – Revisited
| | | |

Evidentia meets a UK BMD – Revisited

By

Last weeks dive into the UK Birth registration of Reginald Charles Deller created a lot of conversation, especially about the correct citation format to use. There was also a missed clue that needs to be called out. I decided to revisit this record and the corresponding citation both to correct some errors on my part…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *