Cited by 7Free Will and AgencyPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryTheology and Philosophy of Evil

Agent-Causation, Explanation, and Akrasia: A Reply to Levy’s Hard Luck

Franklin, Christopher Evan·2015·Criminal Law and Philosophy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11572-013-9274-1

Cites

39 of 39 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

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Authors
Franklin, C. E.
Affiliations
Marymount University (US)
Corresponding author
Franklin, Christopher Evan
Venue
Criminal Law and Philosophy
Published
2013-11-08
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
753-770
ISSN
  • 1871-9791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1871-9805
OpenAlex
W2020865825
Cited by
7
References
40
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Criminal Law and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
Keywords
agent causation, akrasia, moral responsibility, contrastive explanations, libertarianism, determinism, indeterminism, self-control, motivation, moral 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