Cited by 66Philosophy and History of ScienceEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsPhilosophy, Science, and History

Generic versus single-case causality: the case of autopsy

Russo, Federica, Williamson, Jon·2011·European Journal for Philosophy of Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13194-010-0012-4

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 79 · Cited by 66

Authors
Russo, F., & Williamson, J.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Venue
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Published
2011-01
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
47-69
ISSN
  • 1879-4912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-4920
OpenAlex
W2162159604
Cited by
66
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
41.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
Keywords
autopsy, causal inference, levels of analysis

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