CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Double X Science

online magazine

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 4, 2026
Entity authorityQ16249174 ↗
Source-derived summary

Double X Science is an online science- and skepticism-oriented magazine aimed at women, established in October 2011. It describes its goal as to "bring evidence-based science stories and angles on science specifically of interest to the female-gendered audience." The website was co-founded by Emily Willingham; other contributors include Matthew Francis of Galileo's Pendulum and Chris Gunter, formerly the genetics and genomics editor of Nature. The site is funded by the National Association of Science Writers. Deborah Blum has endorsed the site.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Double X Science” as online magazine. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Double, Science and online.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2011—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Double, Science and online providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Double X Science”, the useful work is to connect “online magazine” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16249174. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2011.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Double X Science”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Double X Science primary sources, Double X Science archive and Double research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Double X Science”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Double X Science” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.