The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science
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
A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology
Marino, S., Hogue, I. B., Ray, C. J., & Kirschner, D. E. (2008) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011 · Cited by 2,999
The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning
Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van Der Heijden, K. (2005) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003 · Cited by 1,204
Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00274 · Cited by 668
The Role of Expert Opinion in Environmental Modelling
Krueger, T., Page, T., Hubacek, K., Smith, L., & Hiscock, K. (2012) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.011 · Cited by 413
The role of risk perception for risk management
Renn, O. (1998) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(97)00119-1 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1992-06-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 29-5666-29-5666
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2132811257
- Cited by
- 1,129
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.29-5666
- The paper
- Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. (1992). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.29-5666
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.
