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 |
Establishing conversation spaces in hastily formed networks: the worst fire in modern Swedish history
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Disasters, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/disa.12076 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonas Lundberg, Eva K. Törnqvist, Simin Nadjm‐Tehrani |
| Abstract |
In presenting examples from the most extensive and demanding fire in modern Swedish history, this paper describes challenges facing hastily formed networks in exceptional situations. Two concepts that have been used in the analysis of the socio-technical systems that make up a response are conversation space and sensemaking. This paper argues that a framework designed to promote understanding of the sensemaking process must take into consideration the time and the location at which an individual is engaged in an event. In hastily formed networks, location is partly mediated through physical systems that form conversation spaces of players and their interaction practices. This paper identifies and discusses four challenges to the formation of shared conversation spaces. It is based on the case study of the 2006 Bodträskfors forest fire in Sweden and draws on the experiences of organised volunteers and firefighters who participated in a hastily formed network created to combat the fire. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 22% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 22% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
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 01 October 2014.
All research outputs
#16,691,248
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Disasters
#830
of 968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,986
of 243,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disasters
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 243,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.