The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Studying Elites Using Qualitative Methods
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Their insights are not merely opinions but are grounded in their extensive experience and professional expertise, making them extremely relevant for understanding the current and future landscape of public sector communication, a field where understanding the strategic drivers and institutional frameworks is critical.”
From Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe (2025) · cites this paper as Hertz & Imber (1995)
In the citing paper
“According to Hertz and Imber (1995), elite professionals, due to their positions, experiences, and insights, can provide a depth and richness of information that is often unattainable from other sources.”
From Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe (2025) · cites this paper as Hertz & Imber (1995)
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
Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe
Lovari, A., & De Rosa, F. (2025) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.9644 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Hertz, R., & Imber, J.
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Published
- 1995
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 0
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: Studying Elites Using Qualitative Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781483327341
- The paper
- Hertz, R., & Imber, J. (1995). Studying Elites Using Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327341
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.
