IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Different interpretations of essentially contested concepts lead to substantively different requirements in practice which will only be revealed once principles or concepts are translated and tested in practice.
“These different interpretations, which can be rationally and genuinely held, lead to substantively different requirements in practice 47 which will only be revealed once principles or concepts are translated and tested in practice.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [47]
It may be essential to our use of ethical concepts that they admit contested cases.
“it may be essential to our use of ethical concepts that they admit contested cases (Gallie ( ) )”
From Belief and religious ‘belief’ (2020) · cites this paper as Gallie (1956)
Circular economy has become an 'essentially contested concept' with agreement on the means and goals of the concept but disagreements on how it is defined.
“It has basically become an 'essentially contested concept, ' a phrase coined by Gallie (1956) in which there is agreement on the means and goals of the concept but disagreements on how it is defined; it has recently been used to characterize the circular economy concept (Korhonen et al., 2018).”
From Circular Bioeconomy Concepts—A Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Gallie, 1956
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · see citing works
A conceptual map of political participation
van Deth, J. W. (2014) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/ap.2014.6 · Cited by 610 · see citing works
Circular Bioeconomy Concepts—A Perspective
Tan, E. C. D., & Lamers, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Sustainability · doi:10.3389/frsus.2021.701509 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Multidimensional measure of immigrant integration
Harder, N., Figueroa, L., Gillum, R. M., Hangartner, D., Laitin, D. D., & Hainmueller, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1808793115 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Mapping accountability: core concept and subtypes
Lindberg, S. I. (2013) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852313477761 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
The evolution of power in the global coffee value chain and production network
Grabs, J., & Ponte, S. (2019) · Journal of Economic Geography · doi:10.1093/jeg/lbz008 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Populism and Democratic Theory
Mansbridge, J., & Macedo, S. (2019) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042843 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique
Valentini, L. (2014) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592714002138 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi-dimensional analytic for mapping privacy
Mulligan, D. K., Koopman, C., & Doty, N. (2016) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0118 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
AI Ethics – Too Principled to Fail?
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3391293 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Taking Algorithms to Courts: A Relational Approach to Algorithmic Accountability
Metcalf, J., Singh, R., Moss, E., Tafesse, E., & Watkins, E. A. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594092 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human values
Kasirzadeh, A., & Gabriel, I. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.00731 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
AHMED, A. (2020) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412519000234 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gallie, W. B.
- Corresponding author
- Gallie, W. B.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1956-06-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 167-198
- ISSN
- 0066-7374 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9264
- OpenAlex
- W2309747864
- Cited by
- 2,280
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 127 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 147 · 2023: 146 · 2022: 114 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 215 · 2019: 181 · 2018: 118 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 63
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- essentially contested concepts, concept of justice, concept of law, concept of freedom
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
