Cited by 382Semiotics and Representation StudiesPublic Administration and GovernanceLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

The file: agency, authority, and autography in an Islamabad bureaucracy

Hull, Matthew S.·2003·Language & Communication

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0271-5309(03)00019-3

Cites

0 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?

  • Like other bureaucratic objects, the pink card has an indissoluble, brutal materiality.

    “Like other bureaucratic objects (Bubant 2009; Hull 2003; Riles 2007; Veesman 2008), the pink card has an indissoluble, brutal materiality.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hull, M. S.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Hull, Matthew S.
Venue
Language & Communication
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-07
Volume
23
Issue
3-4
Pages
287-314
ISSN
0271-5309 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065474537
Cited by
382
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
23.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language & Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Semiotics and Representation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
bureaucratic authority, bureaucratic institutions, autography, materiality of documents, semiotics, collectivization

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