The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Open accessAbstract
First this paper indicates the fault common to the analysis given by three professors as to the Deposit-Refund System, and then provides a (much better?) alternative model for Deposit-Refund Theory. In their papers, all three professors have adopted two-stage construction. In the first stage the economic subject demands soft-drink cans following the utility-maximizing rule qua consumer (Jekyll), and then, in the second stage, he suddenly turns into entrepreneur (Hyde) and pursues his profit following the marginal cost-price rule, completely independent of the former behavior. (In Prof. Fujioka's paper, he firstt appears as Hyde. Then transformation into Jekyll!) Their analyses only place a utility-maximizing behavior and a profit-maximizing behavior in juxtaposition completely independent of each other. Such dissociation should not be overlooked. Alternatively a simple (and much better?) model of a unified Deposit-Refund Theory is proposed, which incorporates toil and trouble attendant on refunding into utility function as disutility, together with including the refunded money into the budget equation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article criticizes earlier Deposit-Refund analyses by Shibata, Ueda, and Fujioka for splitting household behavior into a utility-maximizing consumer and a separate profit-maximizing recycler, and proposes a unified household model instead. The alternative model treats the effort of returning empty cans as a disutility inside the utility function and derives a modified marginal-utility condition.
Key findings
- The three prior analyses share a two-stage “Jekyll-Hyde” structure: first the household demands canned drinks according to utility maximization, then it switches to profit maximization for the refund decision, with the two stages treated as independent; the author argues this dissociation is theoretically unacceptable.
- In Fujioka’s model, profit maximization appears as a constraint, π* = max{θyr − C(yr)}, so π* is a fixed maximum value entering the budget equation; the author contends this still separates the refund decision from utility and that simultaneous maximization of utility and profit is logically impossible.
- The proposed alternative is max u = u(x, y, f(x2)) subject to x = x1 + x2 and I = (p + α)x1 + px2 + qy, where x1 is cans not refunded, x2 is cans refunded, and f(x2) captures the disutility of refunding effort; the Lagrangian yields a weighted marginal-utility equalization condition.
- Minor criticisms include that Shibata’s “bent supply curve PHA” and the demand-supply intersection at K are misleading because the marginal recovery cost curve PB is the supply of empty cans from the “Hyde” side, not the supply of canned drinks; the rationale for increasing marginal recovery cost is also questioned, and endpoint solutions are noted if that curve is flat or downward sloping.
Methods
- Theoretical and mathematical economics critique with model construction; no empirical data, sample, or estimation are used.
- The paper reviews and critiques prior works by Shibata and Shibata (1988), Ueda (1996), and Fujioka (1998), using their figures and models as the objects of analysis.
- It formulates a constrained utility-maximization problem, forms a Lagrangian, derives first-order conditions for subjective equilibrium, and suggests comparative statics such as a Slutsky-type equation as a possible extension.
Limitations
- The author states that his critique may rest on mistaken understanding and may contain mistaken criticisms, and he invites correction from the three professors and colleagues.
- The critique of Fujioka is explicitly limited to Model I; later parts of Fujioka’s analysis are left neutral and reserved for future examination.
- The proposed alternative model is described as very simple, and the author notes that other formulations of Deposit-Refund theory are possible; evident from the text, the paper offers no empirical testing or welfare calibration.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
23 Sources not found · 10 Own interpretation · 7 Own result · 3 No basis given
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Their analyses only place a utility-maximizing behavior and a profit-maximizing behavior in juxtaposition completely independent of each other.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“す な わ ちDeposit-Refundシ ス テ ム の も と で の 稍 々 拡 張 さ れ た 加 重 限 界 効 用 均 等 の 法 則 で あ る 。”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“ハ イ ド と し て の 利 潤 極 大 化 とい う企 業 の論 理 は効 用 極 大 化 の制 約 条 件 の な か に入 れ られ た か た ち で 厳 存 して い るの で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“リ フ ァ ン ドの 問 題 は消 費 者(家 計)の 意 識 に は毫 末 も上 る こ とな い の で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ま た これ ら と, 2つ の制 約 条 件 と に よ っ てDeposit-Refundシ ス テ ム の も とで の 主 体 的 均 衡 が き ま る こ と も明 らか で あ る。”
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alternatively a simple (and much better?)model of a unified Deposit -Refund Theory is proposed, which incorporates toil and trouble attendant on refunding into utility function as disutility, together with including the refunded money into the budget equation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In their papers, all three professors have adopted two stage construction.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deposit-Refundの 基 本 分 析 は効 用 分 析(非 効 用 分 析 を含 め て)ぬ き に は成 立 し得 な い。”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“全 く一 同 じ効 用 を与 え る,そ の意 味 で 全 く同 じ ジ ュ ー ス の か ん を,よ り安 くpで 手 に す る た め に は,リ フ ァ ン ドに 随 伴 す る 労 す な わ ち非 効 用(disutility)を 甘 受 せ ね ば な ら な い 。”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“第3辺 は リ フ ァ ン ドの チ ャ ネ ル に よ っ て(u2<0),限 界 効 用 の 大 き さ も ,第1辺 と比 べ て 小 と な っ て お り,同 時 に 分 母 も α だ け 小 と な っ て い る 。”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“第2段 の利 潤 極 大 化 の行 動 の帰 結 とし てハ イ ドが 手 に す る リフ ァ ン ドの金 額 は,そ の ま まハ イ ドの ふ と こ ろ に残 る だ け で あ っ て,そ れ は ジ ュー ス の か ん の 購 入 に は全 く影 響 す る こ とな い 論 理 構 造 とな っ て い る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“モ デ ル が 非 斉 合 的 で あ っ て は大 こ ま りで,藤 岡教 授 か ら,斉 合 的 とい うお 墨 つ き を頂 だ い して も うれ し く も何 と も な い 。”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the first stage the economic subject demands soft-drink cans following the utility-maximizing rule qua consumer (Jekyll), and then, in the second stage, he suddenly turns into entrepreneur (Hyde) and pursues his profit following the marginal cost-price rule, completely independent of the former behavior.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“藤 岡教 授 の仕 事[3]は 柴 田教 授 の それ[1]をbaseに し て,そ れ を発 展 させ よ う との意 図 の も と に執 筆 され て い る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“そ の う ち の 最 大 の も の を π*と 表 す と い う の が(3)の 意 味 す る と こ ろ で あ る 。 π*は 関 数 で は な く,関 数 の と る ひ と つ の 定 ま っ た 値 で あ る 。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“か くして 彼 は,リ フ ァ ン ドの 問題 とは全 く独 立 に ジ ュ ー ス の か ん の購 入 量 を決 定 す る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“今 や 彼 は ジ キ ル(家 計)か らハ イ ド(企 業)に 変 身 し て し ま う。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“わ た くしの モ デル は近 代 経 済 学 の オ ー ソ ドッ ク ス な手 法 に の っ と りなが ら,事 態 の 本 質 を素 直 に定 式 化 し た もの にす ぎず”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“最 後 にf()は,リ フ ァ ン ド に 空 き か ん を 提 出 す る の に と も な うtoil and troubleを 表 す 非 効 用 関 数 で あ る 。”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“教 授 の 論 理 の根 本 的 な難 点 は,こ の二 つ の 図 に表 現 さ れ る,第1段 の,ど れ だ け の ジ ュー ス(の か ん)が 需 要 され るか の議 論 と,第2段 の,こ の ジ ュ ー ス の 空 き か ん の ど れ だ けが リ フ ァ ン ドに供 さ れ るか の議 論 とが 全 くば らば ら,完 全 に分 裂 症 的 症 状 を 呈 して い る 点 で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“利 潤 極 大 とい う表 現 が 始 め て イ クス プ リシ ッ ト に 出現 す るの は藤 岡 教 授 の ペ ー パ ァ[3]に お い)てで あ る”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“先 行 両 教 授 の ジ キ ル= ハ イ ド理 論 の ま ず い と ころ を そ の ま ま継 承 し て し まっ て い る 。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“藤 岡 教 授 の モ デル は 家 計 の効 用 極 大 の 行 動 と し て統 一 的 に定 式 化 され て い るか の ご と くで あ るが,事 実 は全 く異 な る 。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“素 直 に考 えれ ば経 済 学 部1年 の 大 学 生 で も こ う定 式 化 す るの で あ ろ う し”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“非 効 用 関 数 の措 定 を しな い で ,ハ イ ドに変 身 し,全 く誤 っ た仕 方 で 費 用 関 数,利 潤 関 数 を持 ち 出 した の で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“な お こ こで の藤 岡 教 授 批 判 は教 授 の モ デ ルIに 対 す る そ れ に 限 っ て い る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“そ れ は極 め て シ ンプ ル で あ るが,そ れ に も拘 らず 家 計(消 費 者)の 経 済 行 動 の統 一性 が き ち ん と保 た れ て い る(と 思 う)。”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“二 つ の 目的 関 数 の 同時 最 大 化 とい う こ とは論 理 的 に不 可 能 で あ る。”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“x1, x2と も に減 少 す る とい う こ と も無 論 あ り得 る。”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“少 し く経 済 学 を勉 強 した ひ とな らば,こ れ が,利 潤極 大 の生 産 量 を決 定 す る条 件 と し て の価 格 と 限 界 費 用 との 均 衡 を意 味 して い る こ と は直 ち に 了解 す る と こ ろで あ ろ う。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ジ ュ ー ス の購 入 量,空 きか ん の リフ ァ ン ド量 の決 定 につ い て は,効 用 関 数,非 効 用 関 数 に究 極 的 に は依 存 し な い わ け に は行 く筈 が な い で あ ろ う。”
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“二 つ の 目的 関数 を同 時 に 最 大(最 小 の 場 合 も,一 方 最 大,一 方 最 小 の 場 合 も全 く同 じで あ る)に す る とい う こ とは ア プ リオ リに不 可 能 で あ る”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yが 存 在 す るの で ,補 完 関 係 の存 在 は論 理 的 に は 可 能 で あ る。”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“x1とx2と は 間 違 い)なく代 替 財 で あ ろ うが”
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“マ イ ナ ァな が ら許 され な い の は,柴 田教 授[1] 135ペ ー ジの 「 飲 料 の 供 給 曲 線 は屈 折 した 曲線PHAと な る」とい う叙 述 で あ る”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“は じ めが ジ キ ル で あ ろ うが,は じめ が ハ イ ドで あ ろ うが,変 身 の事 実 に か わ りは な く,ど ち らの ジ キ ル=ハ イ ド理 論 も無 差 別,同 罪 で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“次 の 「 缶 入 り飲 料 の 需 要 曲 線DD´が 供 給 曲線PHAと 点Kで 交 わ る とい う叙 述 も有 意 に(significantly)誤 解 惹 起 的 で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such dissociation should not be overlooked.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“この救 い難 い分 裂 症 的 理 論 構 造 は到 底 ゆ る し得 な い と言 わ ね ぼ な らぬ で あ ろ う。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“下 級 財 は当 然 存 在 し得 る。”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Deposit-Refundシ ス テ ム は,リ フ ァ ン ドをせ ね ばp+α の デ ポ ジ ッ トこみ の 価 格 で ジ ュ ー ス の か ん を手 にす るが,リ フ ァ ン ドの労 を とる な ら ば よ り安 くpの 価 格 で 手 に す る こ とが で き る シス テ ム で あ る。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“藤 岡 教 授 に して も ,効 用 を前 提 せ ず し て ジ ュ ー ス 入 りの か ん に と対 す る需 要 曲線 は描 く こ と能 わ な い。”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“経 済 的 宇 宙 を二 分 し て これ を構 成 す る二 つ の 経 済 主 体,家 計,企 業 を想 定 し,前 者 の 行 動 原 理 を効 用 極 大,後 者 の そ れ を利 潤 極 大 と して 両 者 を峻 別 す る の は レオ ン ・ワル ラ ス以 来 近 代 経 済 学 の 伝 統 的 な 基 本 前 提 で は な か った か 。”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Topoisomerase Poisons: Harnessing the Dark Side of Enzyme Mechanism
Froelich-Ammon, S. J., & Osheroff, N. (1995) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.270.37.21429 · Cited by 504
The excited state antiaromatic benzene ring: a molecular Mr Hyde?
Papadakis, R., & Ottosson, H. (2015) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c5cs00057b · Cited by 166
Channel-forming toxins: tales of transformation
Gouaux, E. (1997) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/s0959-440x(97)80123-6 · Cited by 166
Theories of the Male Mid-Life Crisis
Brim, O. G. (1976) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/001100007600600102 · Cited by 128
Roelofs, L. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190859053.001.0001 · Cited by 100
Movement and Forces in Tooth Eruption
NESS, A. R. (1964) · Advances in oral biology · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3117-4.50008-5 · Cited by 77
Holt, A. (2011) · Child & Family Social Work · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00760.x · Cited by 76
Leaving Jekyll and Hyde: Emotion work in the context of intimate partner violence
Enander, V. (2010) · Feminism & Psychology · doi:10.1177/0959353510384831 · Cited by 71
Delusional Misidentification Syndromes and Dementia
Cipriani, G., Vedovello, M., Ulivi, M., Lucetti, C., Fiorino, A. D., & Nuti, A. (2013) · American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · doi:10.1177/1533317513506103 · Cited by 65
Dualisms in Higher Education: a Critique of Their Influence and Effect
Macfarlane, B. (2014) · Higher Education Quarterly · doi:10.1111/hequ.12046 · Cited by 56
Well-suited partners: psychoanalytic research and grounded theory
Anderson, J. (2006) · Journal of Child Psychotherapy · doi:10.1080/00754170600997026 · Cited by 49
From present to presentation: A philosophical critique of Hartmut Rosa’s “situational identity”
D’Ambrosio, P. J. (2018) · Time & Society · doi:10.1177/0961463x18787059 · Cited by 46
Fodor, E. M. (2010) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335156.003.0001 · Cited by 44
Kirkwood, S. (2015) · Theoretical Criminology · doi:10.1177/1362480615607624 · Cited by 37
Physical purity feminism and state medicine in late nineteenth-century england
Scott, A. L. (1999) · Women s History Review · doi:10.1080/09612029900200220 · Cited by 37
Anorexia nervosa: rediscovery of a disorder
Bergh, C. E. K., & Södersten, P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)12033-5 · Cited by 34
Cox, A. (2011) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230316591 · Cited by 26
McNally, K. (2007) · Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbs.20209 · Cited by 23
Cognitive Behavior Therapy in the Treatment of Multiple Personality
Caddy, G. R. (1985) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/01454455850093001 · Cited by 23
Henri Lefebvre’s Urban Critical Theory: Rethinking the City against Capitalism
Biagi, F. (2020) · International Critical Thought · doi:10.1080/21598282.2020.1783693 · Cited by 22
Searching for Mr. Hyde: A five-factor approach to characterizing “types of drunks”
Winograd, R., Steinley, D., & Sher, K. J. (2015) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.3109/16066359.2015.1029920 · Cited by 19
Ortiz‐Robles, M. (2015) · European Journal of English Studies · doi:10.1080/13825577.2015.1004922 · Cited by 12
Senkbeil, K., & Hoppe, N. (2016) · Language and Literature International Journal of Stylistics · doi:10.1177/0963947015608084 · Cited by 11
Estók, S. C. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009550680 · Cited by 10
Moving Possible World Theory from Logic to Value
Bormann, D. C. (2013) · Poetics Today · doi:10.1215/03335372-2087572 · Cited by 9
Jay, M. (2015) · International review of neurobiology · doi:10.1016/bs.irn.2015.01.001 · Cited by 9
Transgressing Gender Boundaries: The Function of the Fantastic in Jeanette Winterson'sThe PowerBook
Kılıç, M. Ö. (2008) · English Studies · doi:10.1080/00138380802011925 · Cited by 9
Landy, R. J. (1993) · The Arts in Psychotherapy · doi:10.1016/0197-4556(93)90043-2 · Cited by 7
Science, Sentiment, and Anxiety: American Nature Writing at the Turn of the Century
Mighetto, L. (1985) · Pacific Historical Review · doi:10.2307/3638864 · Cited by 7
Morris, A. R. (1993) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/0039-3681(93)90051-k · Cited by 7
Weegmann, M. (2005) · Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy · doi:10.1080/02668730500375390 · Cited by 6
Law and Justice in Japanese Popular Culture
Pearson, A., Giddens, T., & Tranter, K. M. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315136134 · Cited by 6
(Re)encountering monsters: animals in early-twentieth-century weird fiction
Alder, E. (2017) · Textual Practice · doi:10.1080/0950236x.2017.1358686 · Cited by 6
Romantic Fantasies of Madness and Objections to Psychotropic Medication
Tutter, A. (2009) · Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association · doi:10.1177/0003065109333504 · Cited by 6
O'Dell, B. D. (2012) · Victorian Literature and Culture · doi:10.1017/s1060150312000071 · Cited by 6
“I Just Really Love My Spirit”: A Rhetorical Inquiry into Dissociative Identity Disorder
Molloy, C. (2015) · Rhetoric Review · doi:10.1080/07350198.2015.1074027 · Cited by 6
McMullan, T., & Sutherland, J. (2020) · London Review of Education · doi:10.14324/lre.18.3.12 · Cited by 6
THE HYDE WE LIVE IN: STEVENSON, EVOLUTION, AND THE ANTHROPOGENIC FOG
Manning, P. M. (2018) · Victorian Literature and Culture · doi:10.1017/s1060150317000389 · Cited by 6
Explaining ethnic harmony: Hawai'i's multicultural ethos
Haas, M. (1996) · Nationalism and Ethnic Politics · doi:10.1080/13537119608428466 · Cited by 6
Bulfin, A. (2021) · Nineteenth Century Contexts · doi:10.1080/08905495.2021.1897373 · Cited by 5
Liepman, M. R., Flachier, R., & Tareen, R. S. (2008) · Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly · doi:10.1300/j020v26n01_04 · Cited by 4
May, R. E. (2011) · Nineteenth Century Contexts · doi:10.1080/08905495.2011.623841 · Cited by 4
Punter, D. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cco9781139045407.011 · Cited by 4
Genotype-by-environment interactions and sexual selection
Shuker, D. M. (2015) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.012 · Cited by 4
Scott, R. D. (2024) · Management & Organizational History · doi:10.1080/17449359.2024.2423099 · Cited by 4
Poidevin, R. L. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199676576.001.0001 · Cited by 4
Khair, T. (2006) · Journal of Postcolonial Writing · doi:10.1080/17449850600973268 · Cited by 4
Dissoziative Amnesie und Migration
Staniloiu, A., Kordon, A., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2017) · Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie · doi:10.1024/1016-264x/a000198 · Cited by 4
Evil doctor, ethical android: Star Trek's instantiation of conscience in subroutines
Grech, V., & Scerri, M. (2020) · Early Human Development · doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105018 · Cited by 4
Presidential Editorial: The Facts and Fantasies of Dissociation
Salter, M. (2022) · Journal of Trauma & Dissociation · doi:10.1080/15299732.2022.2157620 · Cited by 3
An Essay on Narrative, Reality, and Imagination
Bristol, R. C. (2019) · Psychoanalytic Inquiry · doi:10.1080/07351690.2019.1659025 · Cited by 3
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde—and John Hunter
Axelrod, L. (2012) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.01.011 · Cited by 3
Robinson, D. (2021) · Literator · doi:10.4102/lit.v42i1.1737 · Cited by 2
Walking as a Metaphor for Narrativity
Ludwigs, M. (2014) · Studia Neophilologica · doi:10.1080/00393274.2014.981962 · Cited by 2
Hyde and seek: English–Irish hybridity in Stephen Frears'Mary Reilly
McFadden, E. (2011) · Irish Studies Review · doi:10.1080/09670882.2011.541650 · Cited by 2
Can the mind be split? A historical introduction
Corballis, M. C., & Corballis, P. M. (2021) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108041 · Cited by 2
Zuba, C. (2016) · Pedagogy Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature Language Composition and Culture · doi:10.1215/15314200-3436012 · Cited by 2
Femininity in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Cao, S., & Liu, D. (2012) · English Language and Literature Studies · doi:10.5539/ells.v2n1p123 · Cited by 2
The Savage Subtext of The Hound of the Baskervilles
Grylls, D. (2017) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55595-3_9 · Cited by 2
Dr. Perowne and Mr. Baxter: Gothic Resonances in Ian McEwan’s Saturday
Bar-Yosef, E. (2020) · ANQ A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles Notes and Reviews · doi:10.1080/0895769x.2020.1742081 · Cited by 2
The Hitherto Unknown: Toward a Theory of Synthetic Sound
Frank, H. (2022) · boundary 2 · doi:10.1215/01903659-9615403 · Cited by 2
JEKYLL AND HYDE, INC.: LIMITED LIABILITY, COMPANIFICATION, AND GOTHIC SUBJECTIVITY
Guest, K. (2016) · Victorian Literature and Culture · doi:10.1017/s1060150315000649 · Cited by 2
Fleetingness and media-ted existence. From Kierkegaard on the newspaper to Broderick on the Internet
Lombaard, C. J. S. (2009) · Communicatio · doi:10.1080/02500160902969057 · Cited by 2
I Wish the Hour Were Over: Elements of a Moral Dilemma
Goldberg, A. I. (2005) · The Psychoanalytic Quarterly · doi:10.1002/j.2167-4086.2005.tb00207.x · Cited by 2
Hong, S. M. (2019) · Journal of Popular Film and Television · doi:10.1080/01956051.2019.1566201 · Cited by 2
Imagining the Unimaginable: Illustration as Gateway
Newell, K. (2017) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-56712-3_3 · Cited by 2
Violating positivist precepts: a Comtean look into The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Esmailzadeh, S., Beyad, M. S., & Salami, A. (2024) · Nineteenth Century Contexts · doi:10.1080/08905495.2024.2336620 · Cited by 2
Mr Joyce and Dr Hydes: Irish selves and doubles in ‘The Dead’
Thurston, L. (2008) · Textual Practice · doi:10.1080/09502360802263741 · Cited by 1
Ethical issues in the university classroom— a sermon? divertissement? provocation?
Swain, R. (1996) · The Irish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/03033910.1996.10558099 · Cited by 1
de Courville-Nicol, V. (1997) · Space and Culture · doi:10.1177/120633129700100107 · Cited by 1
Sensations: gothic, horror, crime fiction, detective fiction
Garrett, P. K. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/chol9780521194952.031 · Cited by 1
Sataravala, S. (2019) · Indian Journal of Gender Studies · doi:10.1177/0971521518813278 · Cited by 1
Cook, I. R. (2024) · Social & Cultural Geography · doi:10.1080/14649365.2024.2342835 · Cited by 1
Jackson, D. (2023) · Quarterly Review of Film and Video · doi:10.1080/10509208.2023.2171229 · Cited by 1
Paiani, F. R. M. (2023) · Revista Brasileira de Literatura Comparada · doi:10.1590/2596-304x20232550frmp · Cited by 1
“Count me in”;:Dracula,hypnotic participation, and the Late‐Victorian gothic of reading
Stewart, G. (1994) · LIT Literature Interpretation Theory · doi:10.1080/10436929408580122 · Cited by 1
James, E. (2017) · Twentieth Century Literature · doi:10.1215/0041462x-4219936 · Cited by 1
Trouble dissociatif de l’identité et adolescence : quels enjeux cliniques ?
Espi, P. (2023) · Neuropsychiatrie de l Enfance et de l Adolescence · doi:10.1016/j.neurenf.2023.09.002 · Cited by 1
Rewriting the Master: Emma Tennant and Robert Louis Stevenson
Eagleton, M. (2006) · LIT Literature Interpretation Theory · doi:10.1080/10436920600998803 · Cited by 1
Fraile, I. V. (2015) · Le Corbusier, 50 Years Later International Congress · doi:10.4995/lc2015.2015.610 · Cited by 1
A literate tiger: ‘Sangetsuki’ (Tiger-Poet) and the tragedy of discordance
Askew, R. K. (2005) · Japanese Studies · doi:10.1080/10371390500226233 · Cited by 1
Roelofs, L. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190859053.002.0004
The semiotics of authority: a closely-observed lesson
Philp, H. (2019) · Changing English · doi:10.1080/1358684x.2019.1589368
Subotsky, F. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781911623281.004
Implications of Neurotechnology: Brain Recording and Intervention
Haselager, P. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108623056.017
Wall, C. S. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118607251.ch22
Poidevin, R. L. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199676576.002.0006
(2008) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9780822389118-011
Taiwan Shift in Anglophone Fiction and Memoir
Ma, S.-M. (2024) · Canadian Review of American Studies · doi:10.3138/cras-2024-004
Wasson, S. (2020) · Manchester University Press eBooks · doi:10.7765/9781526132871.00015
Literatur-, Quellen- und Filmverzeichnis
Feiersinger, L. (2023) · transcript Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783839466032-019
Poidevin, R. L. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199676576.002.0004
(2008) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9780822389118-009
Poidevin, R. L. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199676576.003.0001
The Problems of Structural Discrepancy
Roelofs, L. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190859053.003.0004
Mental Illness in Literature between Phenomenology and Symbolism
von Engelhardt, D. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192866929.013.30
Composite Subjectivity and Psychological Subjects
Roelofs, L. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190859053.003.0007
Composite Subjectivity and Intelligent Subjects
Roelofs, L. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190859053.003.0005
(2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192866936.002.0008
Queering the Drug Diary: Go Ask Alice and Its Victorian Genealogies
Zieger, S. (2006) · Genre · doi:10.1215/00166928-39-1-89
Metadata
- Authors
- OISHI, Y.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Corresponding author
- OISHI, Yasuhiko
- Venue
- Studies in Regional Science
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 139-154
- ISSN
- 0287-6256 (ISSN-L)
- 1880-6465
- OpenAlex
- W4236930795
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 6 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Studies in Regional Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Merger and Competition Analysis
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Keywords
- deposit-refund systems, recycling, consumer behavior, profit maximization, utility maximization, two-stage model, waste management
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
