CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Measuring Paradigmaticness of Disciplines Using Text

Evans, Eliza, Gomez, Charles, McFarland, Daniel·2016·Sociological Science
DOI 10.15195/v3.a32
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.15195/v3.a32

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Schematic for over-time comparisons of text in metrics of rapid discovery and stability at the core.
Figure 2 Schematic for over-time comparisons of text in metrics of rapid discovery and stability at the core.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Consensus values over time by science/social science group and discipline.
Figure 3 Consensus values over time by science/social science group and discipline.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Rapid discovery values over time by science/social science group and discipline.
Figure 4 Rapid discovery values over time by science/social science group and discipline.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Stability values over time by science/social science group and discipline.
Figure 5 Stability values over time by science/social science group and discipline.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 6
CC-BY · From the PDF

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

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 10.2307/1981958 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/00031305.1984.10483223 · DOI
  3. 10.1086/227835 · DOI
  4. Cole, Stephen, Jonathan Cole, and Lorraine Dietrich. 1976. "Measuring the Cognitive State of Scientific Specialties." Pp. 209-58 in Toward a Metric of Science. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Wiley-Interscience.
  5. 10.1007/BF01476360 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Comte, Auguste. 1865. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. New York: C. Blanchard.
  7. de Solla Price, Derek John. 1970. "Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology, and Nonscience." Pp. 3-22 in Communication Among Scientists and Engineers. Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company.
  8. 10.1257/jep.29.1.89 · DOI
  9. 10.5962/bhl.title.46339 · DOI
  10. Garfield, Eugene. 1977. "The 'Obliteration Phenomenon' in Scienceóand the Advantage of Being Obliterated!" Pp. 396-398 in Essays of an Information Scientist, vol. 2. Philadelphia: ISI Press .
  11. Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H. Martin. 2010. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  12. 10.1017/CBO9780511576638 · DOI
  13. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures - How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. · DOI
  14. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  15. 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107 · DOI
  16. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press.
  17. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1973.tb01065.x · DOI
  19. 10.1002/asi.20967 · DOI
  20. 10.2307/2093493 · DOI
  21. Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
  22. 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000037368.31217.34 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/0003122415607230 · DOI
  24. 10.2307/2392259 · DOI
  25. 10.1007/s11192-007-1700-5 · DOI
  26. 10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y · DOI
  28. 10.2307/255509 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/0003122410388488 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/030631200030001003 · DOI
  31. Toulmin, Stephen. 1972. Human Understanding, Volume I: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (1st). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  32. 10.15195/v1.a15 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Evans, E., Gomez, C., & McFarland, D.
Venue
Sociological Science
Publisher
Society for Sociological Science
Published
2016
Volume
3
Pages
757-778
ISSN
2330-6696
DOI
10.15195/v3.a32
Cited by
29
References
0

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