Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Open access
·2013·Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
DOI 10.1007/11166.1573-0476
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We study how people form and revise health risk beliefs based on food safety information.In an online experiment, subjects stated their perceived risk of contracting a foodborne illness before and after receiving information about the population average risk and the eating habits of the average consumer.Precautionary effort in handling and preparing food reduced prior risk beliefs, but did not affect the belief revision process.About one quarter of subjects either fully ignored the information provided or revised their beliefs inconsistently with the Bayesian learning hypothesis.We find several factors related to the subjects' numerical skills that explain information refusal and inconsistent belief revisions and discuss them in the context of health risks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/11166.1573-0476

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 358

Metadata

Venue
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-05-25
ISSN
  • 0895-5646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0476
DOI
10.1007/11166.1573-0476
OpenAlex
W4243510336
Cited by
358
References
7
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/11166.1573-0476
The paper
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. (2013). Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1007/11166.1573-0476

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.