Cited by 88Philosophy and History of SciencePhilosophy, Science, and HistoryEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Perspectivism, inconsistent models, and contrastive explanation

Chakravartty, Anjan·2010·Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.10.007

Cites

20 of 20 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

2 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chakravartty, A.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Chakravartty, Anjan
Venue
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
405-412
ISSN
0039-3681 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147293515
Cited by
88
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
perspectivism, scientific models, model inconsistency, contrastive explanations, model interpretation, scientific knowledge

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