Natalie Stoljar
- Sociology and Political Science top 5%
- General Health Professions top 5%
- Political Science and International Relations top 5%
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health top 10%
- Philosophy top 2%
- Topics
- Political Philosophy and Ethics (5 papers)Philosophical Ethics and Theory (4 papers)Legal principles and applications (3 papers)
- Partner nations
- AustraliaCanadaUnited Kingdom
In The Last Decade
Natalie Stoljar
15 papers receiving 686 citations
Hit Papers
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 96
- Sociology and Political Science 263
- General Health Professions 250
- Political Science and International Relations 182
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health 172
- Philosophy 132
Countries citing papers authored by Natalie Stoljar
This map shows the geographic impact of Natalie Stoljar's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Natalie Stoljar with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Natalie Stoljar more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Natalie Stoljar
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Natalie Stoljar. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Natalie Stoljar. The network helps show where Natalie Stoljar may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Natalie Stoljar
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Natalie Stoljar. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Natalie Stoljar based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Natalie Stoljar. Natalie Stoljar is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |
| 2 | 5 | |
| 3 | 0 | |
| 4 | 8 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 0 | |
| 7 | 5 | |
| 8 | 2 | |
| 9 | 7 | |
| 10 | Interpretation, indeterminacy and authority: Some recent controversies in the philosophy of law | 2 |
| 11 | 4 | |
| 12 | The Politics of Identity and the Metaphysics of Diversity: Conceptions of Essentialism in Feminist Philosophy | 1 |
| 13 | Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Selfbreakdown → | 700 |
| 14 | Introduction: Autonomy Refigured | 80 |
| 15 | Counterfactuals in interpretation: the case against intentionalism. [Paper presented to Critical Perspectives on Australian Constitutional Law (1997: Australian National University)] | 2 |
| 16 | 61 | |
| 17 | 1 |
About Natalie Stoljar
Natalie Stoljar is a scholar working on Law, Philosophy and Political Science and International Relations, having authored 17 papers that have together received 881 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Political Philosophy and Ethics (5 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (4 papers) and Legal principles and applications (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (132 citations), Gender Studies (104 citations) and General Health Professions (250 citations). Natalie Stoljar has collaborated with scholars based in Australia, Canada and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Catriona Mackenzie, Jennifer Hornsby, Jennifer Saul, Rae Langton, Louise Antony and Kristin Voigt. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Political Philosophy, Australasian Journal of Philosophy and Philosophical Topics.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.