Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contestable categories and public opinion

Edelman, Murray·1993·Political Communication

Abstract

The social world is a kaleidoscope of potential realities, which can be readily evoked by altering the ways in which observations are framed and categorized. Classification schemes are therefore central to political maneuver and political persuasion. Typically, they are driven by the dominant elite's ideology and prejudice rather than by rigorous analysis or the aspiration to solve social problems. This article provides examples of common questionable categorizations of government policies and contestable metaphors used for public figures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10584609.1993.9962981

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Edelman, M.
Venue
Political Communication
Published
1993-01
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
231-242
ISSN
  • 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7675
OpenAlex
W2002091736
Cited by
339
References
1
FWCI
10.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contestable categories and public opinion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962981
The paper
Edelman, M. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962981

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.