The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science
Open accessAbstract
This article assesses the current state of research on the credibility of scientific claims and makes some recommendations about the lines along which future historical and sociological inquiry might most constructively proceed. It sketches how credibility has emerged since the 1970s as an important focus for the social studies of science; it offers an appreciation of the scope of the problem involved in giving an explanation of credibility; it warns against the temptations of overambitious theorizing about how credibility is accomplished; and it provisionally identifies distinct predicaments in which the resources for establishing credibility may systematically differ.
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
Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM
Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe0933 · Cited by 319
City as Truth-Spot: Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies
Gieryn, T. F. (2006) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312705054526 · Cited by 300
Passi, S., & Jackson, S. J. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274405 · Cited by 225
Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology
Montenegro de Wit, M., & Iles, A. (2016) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000115 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Shapin, S.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Science
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-275
- ISSN
- 1063-6145 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9274
- OpenAlex
- W1561983754
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/posc_a_00484
- The paper
- Shapin, S. (1995). Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science. Perspectives on Science. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00484
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.
