The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo
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
Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social Media, Public Space, and Emerging Logics of Aggregation
Juris, J. S. (2012) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01362.x · Cited by 989
Pleck, J. H. (1977) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800135 · Cited by 942
The sociology of emotions: Four decades of progress
Bericat, E. (2016) · Current Sociology · doi:10.1177/0011392115588355 · Cited by 492
Toxic politics: Acting in a permanently polluted world
Liboiron, M., Tironi, M., & Calvillo, N. (2018) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312718783087 · Cited by 459
Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud
Hayes, C. E. (2002) · doi:10.1093/0195151208.001.0001 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Kunz, P. R., & Douglas, M.
- Venue
- Review of Religious Research
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1969
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 114
- ISSN
- 0034-673X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4289254418
- Cited by
- 2,010
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.51
- 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: Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3510915
- The paper
- Kunz, P. R., & Douglas, M. (1969). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Review of Religious Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/3510915
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.
