Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges

Open access
Hagman, William, Andersson, David, Västfjäll, Daniel, Tinghög, Gustav·2015·Review of Philosophy and Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Hagman, W., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G.
Venue
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-05-28
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
439-453
ISSN
  • 1878-5158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-5166
DOI
10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2
OpenAlex
W1600481623
Cited by
267
References
25
FWCI
12.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2
The paper
Hagman, W., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2015). Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.