| Title |
The Reproductive Ecology of Industrial Societies, Part I
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-016-9269-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gert Stulp, Rebecca Sear, Louise Barrett |
| Abstract |
Is fertility relevant to evolutionary analyses conducted in modern industrial societies? This question has been the subject of a highly contentious debate, beginning in the late 1980s and continuing to this day. Researchers in both evolutionary and social sciences have argued that the measurement of fitness-related traits (e.g., fertility) offers little insight into evolutionary processes, on the grounds that modern industrial environments differ so greatly from those of our ancestral past that our behavior can no longer be expected to be adaptive. In contrast, we argue that fertility measurements in industrial society are essential for a complete evolutionary analysis: in particular, such data can provide evidence for any putative adaptive mismatch between ancestral environments and those of the present day, and they can provide insight into the selection pressures currently operating on contemporary populations. Having made this positive case, we then go on to discuss some challenges of fertility-related analyses among industrialized populations, particularly those that involve large-scale databases. These include "researcher degrees of freedom" (i.e., the choices made about which variables to analyze and how) and the different biases that may exist in such data. Despite these concerns, large datasets from multiple populations represent an excellent opportunity to test evolutionary hypotheses in great detail, enriching the evolutionary understanding of human behavior. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 16% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Poland | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 58% |
| Scientists | 7 | 37% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 34% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 17 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,585,473
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#244
of 547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,175
of 330,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.