The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Democracy's Domain
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
The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state
Song, S. (2012) · International Theory · doi:10.1017/s1752971911000248 · Cited by 329
European Demoicracy and Its Crisis
Nicolaïdis, K. (2013) · JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies · doi:10.1111/jcms.12006 · Cited by 304
No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique
Valentini, L. (2014) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592714002138 · Cited by 178
Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide
Goodin, R. E. (2016) · International Theory · doi:10.1017/s1752971916000105 · Cited by 137
Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem
Miller, D. (2020) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12707 · Cited by 59
“Elsewhere I have argued that this will depend on the conception of democracy that we favour, on a spectrum that runs between liberal and radical versions (Miller, 2009).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, D.
- Venue
- Philosophy & Public Affairs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 201-228
- ISSN
- 0048-3915 (ISSN-L)
- 1088-4963
- OpenAlex
- W2047212087
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 66.00
- 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: Democracy's Domain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01158.x
- The paper
- Miller, D. (2009). Democracy's Domain. Philosophy & Public Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01158.x
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.
