Cited by 1,004Research, Science, and AcademiaRisk Perception and ManagementSocial Science and Policy Research

Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science

Jasanoff, Sheila·2003·Minerva

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1025557512320

Cites

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?

  • Jasanoff discusses the fabricated and performative nature of human pretensions of control over technological systems.

    “Science and Technology Studies scholar Sheila Jasanoff discusses the fabricated and performative nature of 'human pretensions of control over technological systems'. 44”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jasanoff, S.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
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
Locations
Minerva (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › 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