Perspectives on causality in sciences and art
Abstract
Perspectives on causality in sciences and art - 1 - On the limits and benefits of narrative representation
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
These inferences are often of the abductive kind.
“Together with Grishakova, I believe that these inferences are often times of the abductive kind (on the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning, cf.Grishakova, 2022).”
From Interactive Digital Narratives as Complex Expressive Means (2022) · cites this paper as Grishakova, 2022
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 1
- Authors
- Grishakova, M.
- Corresponding author
- Grishakova, Marina
- Venue
- The Routledge Companion to Narrative Theory
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2022-05-26
- Pages
- 423-432
- OpenAlex
- W4281557414
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.51
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- causality, narrative representation, narrative in science, narrative in art, limits of narrative, philosophy of science, philosophy of art
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
