Cited by 136Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceGame Theory and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific polarization

Open access
O’Connor, Cailin, Weatherall, James Owen·2018·European Journal for Philosophy of Science

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/s13194-018-0213-9

Cites

56 of 56 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

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?

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 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Hegselmann, R., Krause, U., et al. (2006). Truth and cognitive division of labor: First steps towards a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 10.
  2. Macy, M.W., Kitts, J.A., Flache, A., Benard, S. (2003). Polarization in dynamic networks: a Hopfield model of emergent structure. In R. Brieger, K. Carley, P. Pattison (Eds.) Dynamic social network modeling and analysis (pp. 162–173). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  3. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
  4. Weatherall, J.O., O’Connor, C., Bruner, J. (2018). How to Beat Science and Influence People. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01239 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 136

Metadata

Authors
O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
O’Connor, Cailin
Venue
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Published
2018-08-15
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
855-875
ISSN
  • 1879-4912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-4920
OpenAlex
W2905051439
Cited by
136
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
21.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1535139)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
belief polarization, social learning, evidence collection, true belief, belief updating, scientific communities

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