Cited by 22Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchSocial Policy and Reform StudiesEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The Diversity and Causality of Welfare State Reforms Explored with Fuzzy-Sets

Pennings, Paul·2005·Quality & Quantity

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11135-004-5006-x

Cites

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?

Authors
Pennings, P.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Pennings, Paul
Venue
Quality & Quantity
Published
2005-06
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
317-339
ISSN
  • 0033-5177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7845
OpenAlex
W1964417664
Cited by
22
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality & Quantity (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
welfare state reform, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, welfare regimes, partial membership, causal analysis, necessary and sufficient conditions, conjunctural causation, socio-economic performance, idiosyncrasy

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