↓ Skip to main content

Automated Decision-Making and Big Data: Concerns for People With Mental Illness

Overview of attention for article published in Current Psychiatry Reports, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Automated Decision-Making and Big Data: Concerns for People With Mental Illness
Published in
Current Psychiatry Reports, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11920-016-0746-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott Monteith, Tasha Glenn

Abstract

Automated decision-making by computer algorithms based on data from our behaviors is fundamental to the digital economy. Automated decisions impact everyone, occurring routinely in education, employment, health care, credit, and government services. Technologies that generate tracking data, including smartphones, credit cards, websites, social media, and sensors, offer unprecedented benefits. However, people are vulnerable to errors and biases in the underlying data and algorithms, especially those with mental illness. Algorithms based on big data from seemingly unrelated sources may create obstacles to community integration. Voluntary online self-disclosure and constant tracking blur traditional concepts of public versus private data, medical versus non-medical data, and human versus automated decision-making. In contrast to sharing sensitive information with a physician in a confidential relationship, there may be numerous readers of information revealed online; data may be sold repeatedly; used in proprietary algorithms; and are effectively permanent. Technological changes challenge traditional norms affecting privacy and decision-making, and continued discussions on new approaches to provide privacy protections are needed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 37 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 19 14%
Computer Science 13 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Psychology 11 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 41 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,478,448
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#1,046
of 1,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,293
of 313,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 313,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.