CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology

Wylie, Alison·2002
DOI 10.1525/9780520935402
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this long-awaited compendium of new and newly revised essays, Alison Wylie explores how archaeologists know what they know. Examining the history and methodology of Anglo-American archaeology, Wylie puts the tumultuous debates of the last thirty years in historical and philosophical perspective.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/9780520935402

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • We embrace the post-processual emphasis on pluralism because archaeology as a science can move forward only by looking at problems from different angles.

    “We embrace the post-processual emphasis on pluralism, as the only way in which archaeology as a science can move forward is by looking at problems from different angles (see also Wylie 2002, pp. 171-178).”

    From Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene (2012) · cites this paper as Wylie 2002

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wylie, A.
Publisher
University of California Press
Published
2002-11-13
DOI
10.1525/9780520935402
Cited by
353
References
1

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