The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Arguments in Favor of Higher Order Interactions
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics
Battiston, F., Cencetti, G., Iacopini, I., Latora, V., Lucas, M., Patania, A., Young, J.-G., & Petri, G. (2020) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.05.004 · Cited by 1,602
The Theory of Limiting Similarity
Abrams, P. (1983) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.14.110183.002043 · Cited by 606
Self-citationTHE ROLE OF POSITIVE INTERACTIONS IN COMMUNITIES: LESSONS FROM INTERTIDAL HABITATS
Bertness, M. D., & Leonard, G. H. (1997) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1976:tropii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 580
What are higher-order networks?
Bick, C., Gross, E., Harrington, H. A., & Schaub, M. T. (2023) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/21m1414024 · Cited by 420
Complex Species Interactions and the Dynamics of Ecological Systems: Long-Term Experiments
Brown, J. H., Whitham, T. G., Morgan Ernest, S. K., & Gehring, C. A. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.293.5530.643 · Cited by 398
Metadata
- Authors
- Abrams, P. A.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1983-06
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 887-891
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2081363984
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.82
- 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: Arguments in Favor of Higher Order Interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284111
- The paper
- Abrams, P. A. (1983). Arguments in Favor of Higher Order Interactions. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284111
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.
