The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
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
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000968 · Cited by 2,254
Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research1
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23042796 · Cited by 1,328
Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation
Munos, B. (2009) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd2961 · Cited by 1,207
Big Data Research in Information Systems: Toward an Inclusive Research Agenda
University of Virginia, Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., University of Virginia, Aalto University, Chiang, R., & University of Cincinnati (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00423 · Cited by 688
Blended learning: A dangerous idea?
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Venue
- Library Review
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2008-02-29
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 152-155
- ISSN
- 0024-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1481900550
- Cited by
- 2,425
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1159.00
- 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: The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/00242530810854080
- The paper
- The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. (2008). Library Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530810854080
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.
