Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 639

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 131 of the 131 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation

Evans, Peter·2004·Studies in Comparative International Development
DOI 10.1007/bf02686327
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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/bf02686327

Cites

131 of 131 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

Cited by

See all 639

Metadata

Authors
Evans, P.
Venue
Studies in Comparative International Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-12
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
30-52
ISSN
  • 0039-3606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-6167
DOI
10.1007/bf02686327
OpenAlex
W2052935095
Cited by
639
References
131
FWCI
62.97
Type
journal article
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

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.