Are there peer-reviewed or government studies that confirm or contradict CIS's 59% claim?

1. Who “CIS” might be — competing identities and why that matters

Several different organizations use the initials CIS in the search results: the Australian Centre for Independent Studies (a think tank) ^[1], MIT’s Center for International Studies ^[2], and the Center for Internet Security with its “CIS Benchmarks” ^{[3] [4]}. Other CIS acronyms in the results refer to study‑abroad providers and technical conferences ^{[5] [6]}. Because the query’s “CIS’s 59% claim” lacks a clear organizational tag in the available results, any attempt to identify peer‑reviewed or government corroboration requires first establishing which CIS made the claim — which the current reporting does not do (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. No direct match for “59%” in the supplied results

A focused scan of the provided snippets and pages turned up no explicit reference to a 59% statistic tied to any CIS entity. The Wikipedia entry for the Centre for Independent Studies discusses funding controversies and personnel matters but does not quote a 59% figure in the excerpts provided ^[1]. The Center for Internet Security pages describe benchmarks and updates without numeric claims like “59%” in the excerpts ^{[3] [4]}. The MIT Center for International Studies material likewise concerns grants and programs, not a 59% claim ^[2]. Therefore, available sources do not mention the disputed 59% claim (not found in current reporting).

3. What the user should provide next to get a precise answer

To locate peer‑reviewed or government studies confirming or contradicting a specific 59% claim, provide: (a) the full sentence or headline containing “59%”; (b) which CIS (Centre for Independent Studies, Center for Internet Security, or another CIS) made the claim; and (c) the topic (public opinion, immigration, cyber‑security adoption, education outcomes, etc.). With that context, researchers can target academic databases and government repositories relevant to that field — something the current result set cannot do because it lacks that specificity (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

4. Possible avenues of verification depending on which CIS is meant

If the claim comes from the Centre for Independent Studies (Australian think tank), the relevant verifications would be peer‑reviewed social science literature and Australian government statistics — neither of which appear among the supplied pages ^[1]. If the claim is from the Center for Internet Security about cybersecurity adoption or compliance rates, verification would come from technical white papers, vendor studies, or government cybersecurity surveys (CISA, national SOCs); again, the supplied CIS Benchmarks pages do not present such a 59% statistic in the excerpts ^{[3] [4]}. If the MIT Center for International Studies is the source, academic publications or government policy reports would be the verification path; the MIT pages in the results describe programs and seed funds, not a 59% claim ^[2].

5. Caveats, conflicts of interest and the need for primary sources

Think tanks and advocacy groups (e.g., the Centre for Independent Studies) can produce policy reports that use survey or administrative data; those reports may or may not be peer‑reviewed, and funding or partnerships (noted controversies appear in the CIS Wikipedia entry) can influence framing — so verifying with primary, peer‑reviewed studies or government data is essential ^[1]. Technical organizations (Center for Internet Security) produce community standards and tool updates; their metrics are often operational and may rely on vendor data rather than academic peer review ^{[3] [4]}. None of the supplied pages give the specific 59% figure or its methodological notes, so conclusions about corroboration or contradiction cannot be drawn from the current set (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. Practical next steps I can take for you

I can (a) re-run targeted searches of the supplied corpus if you provide the exact quote or topic tied to “59%,” or (b) search external academic and government databases for corroboration if you allow sources beyond the current set. Based on the results here, decisive confirmation or contradiction of a “CIS 59%” claim cannot be supplied without additional, specific source text identifying which CIS and which claim to verify (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3]}.