The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Introduction
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 6 Not valid · 5 Not checked · 17 Own results and interpretations
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Essays on China, Japan, Korea, and Mongolia all note the near, or total, absence of anthropomorphic representations of deities or spirits before the arrival of Buddhism.”
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.
In the paper
“Special rituals imbue material representations of Buddhist deities with their presence.1”
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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sufi mystic traditions in Mughal India also inherited the view that devotional portraits of Sufi saints were sites of the saints' presence.”
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.
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
“The act of seeing therefore held different meanings for different groups of worshippers.”
plainstates an association- 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
“Copies of sacred images brought by pilgrims back to China and other countries facilitated the circulation of sacred images in vast territories of Asia.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
5 more claims
Create a free account to see all 28 claims and every source verdict.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
Citations
Cited by
Gods and Things: Is “Animism” an Operable Concept in Korea?
Kendall, L. (2021) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel12040283 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Wong, D. C.
- Corresponding author
- Wong, Dorothy C.
- Venue
- Ars Orientalis
- Publisher
- University of Michigan Library
- Published
- 2020-10-22
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 20220203
- ISSN
- 0571-1371 (ISSN-L)
- 2328-1286
- OpenAlex
- W4211211819
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ars Orientalis (publishedVersion)
- University of Michigan Library Repository (submittedVersion)
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 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Introduction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3998/ars.13441566.0050.010
- The paper
- Wong, D. C. (2020). Introduction. Ars Orientalis. https://doi.org/10.3998/ars.13441566.0050.010
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.
