Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17,894

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Harvard Business Review

Armstrong, J.Scott, Georgoff, David M.·1988·International Journal of Forecasting
DOI 10.1016/0169-2070(88)90019-2
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 · 10.1016/0169-2070(88)90019-2

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chambers, 1971, How to choose the right forecasting technique, Harvard Business Review, 49, 45
  2. Fildes, 1985, Quantitative forecasting — the state of the art: Econometric methods, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 549

Cited by

Items 101–155 of 155

Metadata

Authors
Armstrong, J. S., & Georgoff, D. M.
Venue
International Journal of Forecasting
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1988-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
164-165
ISSN
0169-2070 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0169-2070(88)90019-2
OpenAlex
W1517701247
Cited by
17,894
References
0
FWCI
573.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

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.