↓ Skip to main content

Anthropocentricisms in cladograms

Overview of attention for article published in Biology & Philosophy, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Anthropocentricisms in cladograms
Published in
Biology & Philosophy, December 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10539-007-9102-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanno Sandvik

Abstract

Both written and graphic accounts of history can be biased by the perspective of the historian. O'Hara (Biol Philos 7:135-160, 1992) has demonstrated that this also applies to evolutionary history and its historians, and identified four narrative devices that introduce anthropocentricisms into accounts of phylogeny. In the current paper, I identify a fifth such narrative device, viz. the left-right ordering of the taxa at the tips of cladograms. I define two measures that make it possible to quantify the degree of anthropocentricism of cladograms, the human attention score and human rightness score. I then carry out an analysis of the presence of the different distorting mechanisms in phylogenetic textbooks. I deliberately chose two textbooks that adopted a cladistic perspective, since their authors can be assumed to be more conscious about the aim of avoiding anthropocentricisms. Three of the narrative devices are thus absent from cladistic works. However, there is a weak tendency that the resolution of cladogram branches is biased in favour of Homo sapiens. Furthermore, the human perspective is clear and highly significant in the positioning of taxa along the left-right axis of cladograms. I discuss the reasons for and implications of these biased presentations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Uruguay 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 51%
Philosophy 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 3 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 July 2012.
All research outputs
#5,588,127
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#215
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,822
of 155,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 155,877 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.