Peers and peer networks would create filters based on their own standards.
Qualifications would assess a study by its objectivity, comprehensiveness, transparency and empiral methodology.
Users would change filters on-the-fly to see different results displayed.
For example, if a peer or network set values for transparency they might give more weight to scientific articles that displayed all original data and methods, and if those met certain standards, and if the conclusion logically followed the results, weighing in or out standard criteria such as whether a study were replicated, if the subject size was adequate and the reputation of related institutions. Calculations could include ratios of relative and absolute values and articles in which the absolute values were consistent with article conclusions.
Peer groups would edit, quantify and deliberate grading methods for scientific assessments which they would adapt to meet their own specific interests and standards.
–> To model deliberation of an ushin filter using u4u semscreens.