The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Essentially Contested Concepts
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
Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework 1
Bovens, M. (2007) · European Law Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x · Cited by 2,667
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886
“These different interpretations, which can be rationally and genuinely held, lead to substantively different requirements in practice 47 , which will only be revealed once principles or concepts are translated and tested in practice 48 .”
Circular economy as an essentially contested concept
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111 · Cited by 1,568
Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism
Bovens, M. (2010) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402382.2010.486119 · Cited by 1,018
Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005) · Third World Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01436590500235603 · Cited by 772
Metadata
- Authors
- Gallie, W. B., & Philosophy Documentation Center
- Venue
- Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines
- Publisher
- Philosophy Documentation Center
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-18
- ISSN
- 1093-1082 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069476460
- Cited by
- 1,851
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 160.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Essentially Contested Concepts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5840/inquiryctnews19941415
- The paper
- Gallie, W. B., & Philosophy Documentation Center. (1994). Essentially Contested Concepts. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews19941415
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.
