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 |
Classifying animals into ecologically meaningful groups: A case study on woodland birds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biological Conservation, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.006 |
| Authors |
Hannah Fraser, Cindy E. Hauser, Libby Rumpff, Georgia E. Garrard, Michael A. McCarthy |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 31% |
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Scientists | 7 | 44% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 30% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,543,785
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biological Conservation
#2,385
of 6,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,654
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Conservation
#53
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 331,218 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.