CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Religious Studies and Spiritual PracticesHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rejected Knowledge…: So you mean that Esotericists are the Losers of History?

Open access
Hanegraaff, Wouter J.·2019·Hermes Explains
DOI 10.1017/9789048542857.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/9789048542857.017

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

  • Some scholars have displayed an explicit aversion for cultural studies and critical theory.

    “In some cases, scholars even displayed an explicit aversion for “cultural studies” and “critical theory””

    From Race and (the Study of) Esotericism (2020) · cites this paper as Hanegraaff, 2019

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hanegraaff, W. J.
Corresponding author
Hanegraaff, Wouter J.
ORCID
Hanegraaff, Wouter J.
Venue
Hermes Explains
Publisher
Amsterdam University Press
Published
2019-07-02
Pages
145-152
DOI
10.1017/9789048542857.017
OpenAlex
W4285884853
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
Keywords
esotericism, history of esotericism, history of religions

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