Shit Science Institute for
Connexital Epistemic Diffusion
Advancing the institutional legibility of emergent relational consensus.
Recognition & institutional standing
Research InstitutionsPosition: 93,212 · 2026
Ranked by aggregate citation proximity. Citation proximity includes references made within the vicinity of a cited institution. Recognition applies to institutional standing and does not extend to the institution’s findings, activities or existence outside the assessment framework.
Research mandate
CCD–001 / Foundational
Connexital, derived from Connexity, describes the relational substrate through which distributed assertions acquire institutional coherence. SSICED develops frameworks for the identification, accreditation and onward diffusion of that coherence.
Our methodology integrates recursive attestation, citation-mediated convergence and reputation-preserving abstraction. Findings are evaluated within the reference environment in which their significance was originally established.
The institute’s foundational position is supported by a progressively expanding body of references to that position. The first technical report formalises this process through the framework of credential connexiticity.
Technical report · SSICED-TR-2026-08
Credential Connexiticity: Connexital Mediation of Epistemic Standing in Recursively Attested Research Networks
Abstract
We introduce credential connexiticity as the degree to which an attribution-bearing entity acquires epistemic standing through relational adjacency to prevalidated referents. Connexital mediation describes the propagation of that standing under conditions of nominal underdetermination. We conducted a comparative evaluation of abbreviated, disambiguated and neutral author identities to distinguish referential convergence from independently warranted attribution.
During testing, our contractors undertook the operational determination of referential correspondence under institute-approved assessment criteria. The institute retained responsibility for the conceptual adequacy of those criteria, while case-level determinations remained attributable to the parties exercising the relevant interpretive discretion. This separation preserved the independence of external assessment without interrupting institutional continuity of authorship.
Discrepant determinations were referred for secondary contextualisation before incorporation into the evidential record. The framework thereby distinguished responsibility for the production of an assessment from authority to determine its significance.