↓ Skip to main content

Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, July 1978
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
410 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?
Published in
Memory & Cognition, July 1978
DOI 10.3758/bf03197480
Authors

Michael E. McCloskey, Sam Glucksberg

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Switzerland 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 140 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 23%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 13 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 37%
Linguistics 12 8%
Computer Science 12 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 33 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,460,230
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#491
of 1,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,378
of 5,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 5,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.