grantscience.com · evidence gap map
Where the peer-review evidence sits
Each bubble is the number of studies at that stage of the review process addressing that construct. Colour is the share of those studies that are controlled experiments (randomised or experimental designs), a description of study design, not a judgement of quality. Small or pale cells are the gaps. The default view is grant review; switch context to compare. Click any cell to list the studies; click a title for a short summary.
Evidence gap map after Snilstveit et al. (2016) and White et al. (2020). Process stage is AI-coded from titles and abstracts; construct labels are the coding panel’s majority vote. The residual general-systemic construct (91 papers) has no column on the map. Summaries are AI-generated and to be verified before citation. Provisional, not source-verified.