The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
The great Devonian controversy : the shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists
Abstract
Arguably the best work to date in the history of geology.--David R. Oldroyd, Science After a superficial first glance, most readers of good will and broad knowledge might dismiss [this book] as being too much about too little. They would be making one of the biggest mistakes in their intellectual lives. . . . [It] could become one of our century's key documents in understanding science and its history.--Stephen Jay Gould, New York Review of Books Surely one of the most important studies in the history of science of recent years, and arguably the best work to date in the history of geology.--David R. Oldroyd, 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
Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10001 · Cited by 1,302
Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries
MYERS, G. (2003) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/1461445603005002006 · Cited by 286
The Anthropo-scene: A guide for the perplexed
Lorimer, J. (2017) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312716671039 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Rudwick, M. J. S.
- Published
- 1985-01-01
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 397
- OpenAlex
- W2165214914
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 0
- Type
- other
- 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: The great Devonian controversy : the shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7208/9780226731001
- The paper
- Rudwick, M. J. S. (1985). The great Devonian controversy : the shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226731001
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.
