Cited by 334Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

Misrepresenting & malfunctioning

Neander, Karen·1995·Philosophical Studies

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/bf00989706

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Neander, K.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Neander, Karen
Venue
Philosophical Studies
Published
1995-08
Volume
79
Issue
2
Pages
109-141
ISSN
  • 0031-8116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0883
OpenAlex
W3164542131
Cited by
334
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
32.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Philosophical Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
misrepresentation, malfunction, error theory

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