The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique
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
Theories and Major Hypotheses in Ethnobotany
Gaoue, O. G., Coe, M. A., Bond, M., Hart, G., Seyler, B. C., & McMillen, H. (2017) · Economic Botany · doi:10.1007/s12231-017-9389-8 · Cited by 322
An ethnobotanical survey of indigenous medicinal plants in Hafizabad district, Punjab-Pakistan
Umair, M., Altaf, M., & Abbasi, A. M. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177912 · Cited by 287
Losing knowledge about plant use in the sierra de manantlan biosphere reserve, Mexico
Benz, B. F., Cevallos E., J., Santana M., F., Rosales A., J., & Graf M., S. (2000) · Economic Botany · doi:10.1007/bf02907821 · Cited by 271
Diversity of plant uses in two Caiçara communities from the Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil
Hanazaki, N., Tamashiro, J. Y., Leitão-Filho, H. F., & Begossi, A. (2000) · Biodiversity & Conservation · doi:10.1023/a:1008920301824 · Cited by 259
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4 · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, O., & Gentry, A. H.
- Venue
- Economic Botany
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-32
- ISSN
- 0013-0001 (ISSN-L)
- 1874-9364
- OpenAlex
- W354718547
- Cited by
- 999
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.32
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02862203
- The paper
- Phillips, O., & Gentry, A. H. (1993). The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02862203
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.
