Correction to: Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices
Open accessThe 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
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.
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?
Legitimacy perceptions in redistribution depend not only on effectiveness but also on whether policies reflect broader social goods such as transparency, accountability and fairness.
“Legitimacy perceptions in redistribution depend not only on effectiveness but also on whether policies reflect broader social goods such as transparency, accountability and fairness (Chugunova and Luhan 2025;Moon 2023).”
From Holding <scp>AI</scp> Accountable Like Herding Cats: The Contingent Impact on the Legitimacy of Algorithmic Bureaucracy (2026) · cites this paper as Chugunova and Luhan 2025
The cited source is a correction notice. Its Additional information section (page not provided) addresses appendix placement and labeling, not legitimacy in redistribution. Searches for legitimacy, effectiveness, transparency, accountability, and fairness found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu, R., & Han, Y. (2026) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70043 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chugunova, M., & Luhan, W. J.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (DE)
- University of Portsmouth (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Luhan, Wolfgang J.
- Venue
- Public Choice
- Published
- 2025-01
- Volume
- 202
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 25-26
- ISSN
- 0048-5829 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7101
- OpenAlex
- W4406116825
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Public Choice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- algorithmic decision-making, human-automation interaction
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
