The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: A comparative analysis
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning—II
Zadeh, L. A. (1975) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8 · Cited by 2,555
Verbal Vs. Numerical Processing of Subjective Probabilities
Zimmer, A. C. (1983) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62198-6 · Cited by 131
Cited by
Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer.
Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4 · Cited by 330
Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: Toward translating linguistic probabilities
Dhami, M. K., & Wallsten, T. S. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193213 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Zwick, R., Carlstein, E., & Budescu, D. V.
- Venue
- International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 221-242
- ISSN
- 0888-613X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2089807790
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Measures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: A comparative analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0888-613x(87)90015-6
- The paper
- Zwick, R., Carlstein, E., & Budescu, D. V. (1987). Measures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-613x(87)90015-6
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.
