CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesEducation, Healthcare and Sociology Research

Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication

Gerken, Mikkel·2018·Journal for General Philosophy of Science
DOI 10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • The PST generality constraint fits well with, and can supplement, other recent guidelines that aim to prevent ethical or epistemic harm from PST.

    “PST generality constraint also coheres well with, and can be added to, other recently defended guidelines for scientists and science reporters to avoid causing ethical and/or epistemic harm via PST (see, for example,Gerken [2018Gerken [ ], [2020]]).”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Gerken [2018]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gerken, M.
Affiliations
University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Gerken, Mikkel
ORCID
Gerken, Mikkel
Venue
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-06-01
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
299-318
ISSN
  • 0044-2216 (ISSN-L)
  • 0925-4560
  • 1572-8587
DOI
10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1
OpenAlex
W2885667318
Cited by
74
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 18
FWCI
37.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal for General Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Education, Healthcare and Sociology Research
Keywords
expert testimony, ethics of science communication, public deliberation, public trust in science, division of cognitive labor, expert recommendations

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