CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Judicial and Constitutional StudiesLegal processes and jurisprudenceEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Public Epistemic Authority

Laux, Johann Moritz·2022·Mohr Siebeck eBooks
DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160257-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Every court claims authority. Normative scholars assess the legitimacy of those claims. Public Epistemic Authority provides a new perspective on this task by drawing on mechanisms of collective intelligence and comparing courts reliability as decision-makers to that of other branches of government.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1628/978-3-16-160257-3

Cites

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?

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Laux, J. M.
Affiliations
Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Laux, Johann Moritz
ORCID
Laux, Johann Moritz
Venue
Mohr Siebeck eBooks
Publisher
Mohr Siebeck
Published
2022
DOI
10.1628/978-3-16-160257-3
OpenAlex
W3154407669
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mohr Siebeck eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
judicial power, epistemic authority, judicial legitimacy, collective intelligence, judicial decision-making

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