You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The potential for microchip‐automated technology to improve enrichment practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Zoo Biology, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1002/zoo.20296 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia M. Hoy, Peter J. Murray, Andrew Tribe |
| Abstract |
The greatest limitation involved with providing enrichment and evaluating its effects on captive mammals is a lack of available staff time [Hoy et al., 2009]. One method to overcome this is through the use of automated husbandry systems to dispense enrichment to individual animals by using implantable radio frequency microchips. An international multi-institutional survey was conducted to determine whether the personnel involved with management, research, and husbandry of captive mammals would support the development of such automated husbandry systems. The survey was also designed to establish which applications of the system would be considered to be most beneficial. Overall, there was a very high level of interest by survey respondents in adopting automated husbandry systems and all potential applications were considered beneficial to varying degrees. These results, together with the relatively low cost of installation and operation, demonstrate that in the future automated enrichment could be an important and effective means of enhancing captive animal management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Russia | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 38 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 21% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 57% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 10% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Zoo Biology
#838
of 1,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,052
of 172,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zoo Biology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 172,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.