Cited by 10Literary and Philosophical StudiesDigitalization, Law, and RegulationCybernetics and Technology in Society

From Galatea 2.2 to Watson – And Back?

Hildebrandt, Mireille·2013·Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-94-007-6314-2_2

Cites

88 of 88 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

10 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hildebrandt, M.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Hildebrandt, Mireille
Venue
Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice
Published
2013
Pages
23-45
ISSN
  • 1534-6781 (ISSN-L)
  • 2214-9902
OpenAlex
W2147703519
Cited by
10
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.68
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ius gentium (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
artificial intelligence, legal personality, agency, IBM Watson, Jeopardy!, Richard Powers, artificial neural networks, human-computer relationship

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