Cited by 52Climate Change and GeoengineeringEthics and Social Impacts of AIEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics

Stratospheric aerosol injection research and existential risk

Halstead, John·2018·Futures

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.futures.2018.03.004

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halstead, J.
Corresponding author
Halstead, John
Venue
Futures
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
102
Pages
63-77
ISSN
0016-3287 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2793082782
Cited by
52
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 2
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Futures (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
Keywords
stratospheric aerosol injection, geoengineering, existential risk, climate change mitigation, research ethics, termination shock, interstate conflict, climate security, deep uncertainty

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