The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rational Consensus in Science and Society
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?
GOLDMAN, A. I. (2001) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x · Cited by 911
Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., Vogel, D. R., & Pierre, B. A. (1996) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518138 · Cited by 667
CONTINUOUS OPINION DYNAMICS UNDER BOUNDED CONFIDENCE: A SURVEY
LORENZ, J. (2007) · International Journal of Modern Physics C · doi:10.1142/s0129183107011789 · Cited by 561
Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective
Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L. (1988) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1957401 · Cited by 462
Zhang, H., Dong, Y., Chiclana, F., & Yu, S. (2019) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.052 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C.
- Venue
- Springer eBooks
- Publisher
- Springer Netherlands
- Published
- 1981
- OpenAlex
- W4236906072
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Rational Consensus in Science and Society. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-94-009-8520-9
- The paper
- Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981). Rational Consensus in Science and Society. Springer eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8520-9
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.
