Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 911

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International Economic Review

Open access
·2010·International Economic Review
DOI 10.1111/(issn)1468-2354
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article revisits the no-recall assumption in job search models with take-it-or-leave-it offers.Workers who can recall previously encountered potential employers in order to engage them in Bertrand bidding have a distinct advantage over workers without such attachments.Firms account for this difference when hiring a worker.When a worker first meets a firm, the firm offers the worker a sufficient share of the match rents to avoid a bidding war in the future.The pair share the gains to trade.In this case, the Diamond paradox no longer holds.

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 · 10.1111/(issn)1468-2354

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 911

Metadata

Venue
International Economic Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05-19
ISSN
  • 0020-6598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2354
DOI
10.1111/(issn)1468-2354
OpenAlex
W4242535057
Cited by
911
References
9
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: International Economic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/(issn)1468-2354
The paper
International Economic Review. (2010). International Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/(issn)1468-2354

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.