The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Algorithmic Governance: Technology, Knowledge and Power
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“The second most commonly recorded concern is the use of variables or features that correlate so strongly with race, gender, age, or other protected attributes as to be essentially replacements for those values in the predictive features given to risk-assessment algorithms [59].”
From Efficiency vs. Equity: A Structured Interdisciplinary Review of AI in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments (2026) · cites this paper as [59]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Atkinson, G., & Casagrande, K. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17060574
Metadata
- Authors
- Peeters, R., & Schuilenburg, M.
- Venue
- The SAGE Handbook of Digital Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 439-457
- Cited by
- 8
- 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
