Cited by 24Philosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics and Social Impacts of AIPolitical Philosophy and Ethics

Against Leben’s Rawlsian collision algorithm for autonomous vehicles

Keeling, Geoff·2018·Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-96448-5_29

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keeling, G.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Keeling, Geoff
Venue
Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
Published
2018
Pages
259-272
ISSN
  • 2192-6255 (ISSN-L)
  • 2192-6263
OpenAlex
W2888891992
Cited by
24
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
44.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, collision algorithm, John Rawls, moral responsibility, moral status, AI ethics

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