Cited by 408Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Anti-luck epistemology

Pritchard, Duncan·2007·Synthese

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11229-006-9039-7

Cites

57 of 57 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pritchard, D.
Affiliations
University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Pritchard, Duncan
Venue
Synthese
Published
2006-10-10
Volume
158
Issue
3
Pages
277-297
ISSN
  • 0039-7857 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0964
OpenAlex
W2092707543
Cited by
408
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 5
FWCI
47.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Synthese (publishedVersion)
Funders
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/D500494/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
epistemic luck

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