The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On Political Methodology: Archival Version
Open accessAbstract
These data and/or computer programs are part of ICPSR's Publication-Related Archive and are distributed exactly as they arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the INVESTIGATOR(S) if further information is desired.
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
Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis
Diez-Roux, A. V. (1998) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.88.2.216 · Cited by 1,317
Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items
Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf00992337 · Cited by 983
Balmas, M. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650212453600 · Cited by 325
The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators
Thomas, S., & Welch, S. (1991) · Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.1177/106591299104400212 · Cited by 314
Research into Questionnaire Design: A Summary of the Literature
Lietz, P. (2010) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.2501/s147078530920120x · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- King, G.
- Venue
- ICPSR Data Holdings
- Published
- 1996-01-03
- OpenAlex
- W4210251789
- Cited by
- 554
- References
- 0
- Type
- dataset
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: On Political Methodology: Archival Version. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3886/icpsr01053
- The paper
- King, G. (1996). On Political Methodology: Archival Version. ICPSR Data Holdings. https://doi.org/10.3886/icpsr01053
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.
