The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Science and Technology Studies scholar Sheila Jasanoff discusses the fabricated and performative nature of 'human pretensions of control over technological systems'. 44”
From Proceduralizing control and discretion: Human oversight in artificial intelligence policy (2020) · cites this paper as [44]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184
The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation
Turnhout, E., Metze, T. A. P., Wyborn, C. A., Klenk, N. L., & Louder, E. (2019) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009 · Cited by 998
McNie, E. (2006) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004 · Cited by 881
Eriksen, S., Schipper, E. L. F., Scoville-Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H. N., Brooks, N., Harding, B., Khatri, D., Lenaerts, L., Liverman, D., et al. (2021) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383 · Cited by 860
The Issues Deserve More Credit
Marres, N. (2007) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312706077367 · Cited by 662
Metadata
- Authors
- Jasanoff, S.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jasanoff, Sheila
- ORCID
- Jasanoff, Sheila
- Venue
- Minerva
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 223-244
- ISSN
- 0026-4695 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1871
- OpenAlex
- W4240413791
- Cited by
- 1,004
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 77 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 13.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Minerva (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
- Keywords
- citizen participation, science in society, uncertainty analysis, expert decision-making, technology governance, framing, vulnerability, distribution, learning
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
