| Title |
What are cultural attractors?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology & Philosophy, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-017-9570-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew Buskell |
| Abstract |
Concepts from cultural attractor theory are now used in domains far from their original home in anthropology and cultural evolution. Yet these concepts have not been consistently characterised. I here distinguish four ways in which the cultural attractor concept has been used and identify three kinds of factors of attraction typically appealed to. Clarifying these explanatory concepts identifies problems and ambiguities in the work of cultural epidemiologists and commentators alike. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 2 | 7% |
| Italy | 2 | 7% |
| Germany | 2 | 7% |
| France | 2 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 66% |
| Scientists | 7 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Hungary | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Philosophy | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,112,906
of 25,223,158 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#65
of 715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,194
of 340,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,223,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 340,411 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them