| Title |
Why Big Data Won't Cure Us
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Big Data, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1089/big.2013.0029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gina Neff |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 265 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 | 81 | 31% |
| United Kingdom | 20 | 8% |
| Spain | 9 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 8 | 3% |
| France | 6 | 2% |
| Canada | 6 | 2% |
| Italy | 5 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 5 | 2% |
| Germany | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 35 | 13% |
| Unknown | 85 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 191 | 72% |
| Scientists | 48 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 3% |
| France | 3 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 234 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 49 | 19% |
| Researcher | 44 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 53 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 60 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 59 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 5% |
| Engineering | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 60 | 23% |
| Unknown | 36 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 205. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#196,468
of 25,859,234 outputs
Outputs from Big Data
#4
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,287
of 213,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Big Data
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,859,234 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 213,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.