↓ Skip to main content

Determining representative ranges of point sensors in distributed networks

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Determining representative ranges of point sensors in distributed networks
Published in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10661-018-6689-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John K. Horne, Dale A. Jacques

Abstract

Distributed networks of stationary instruments provide high temporal scope (i.e., range/resolution) observations but are spatially limited as a set of point measurements. Measurement similarity between points typically decays with distance, which is used to set interpolation distances. The importance of analyzing spatiotemporal data at equivalent spatial and temporal scales has been identified but no standard procedure is used to interpolate space using temporally-indexed observations. Using concurrent mobile and stationary active acoustic, fish density data from a tidal energy site in Puget Sound, WA, USA, six methods are compared to estimate the range at which stationary measurements can be spatially interpolated. Four methods estimate the representative range of the mean using autocorrelation or paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA. Accuracy of resulting sensor density estimates was modeled as departures from interpolated linear and aerial estimates. Two methods were used to estimate representative range of the variance by comparing theoretical spectra or by determining equivalent spatial and temporal scales. Representative ranges of means extended from 30.57 to 403.9 m. Estimation error (i.e., standard deviation) ranges of linearly interpolated or aerially extrapolated values ranged from 42.5 to 82.3%. Representative ranges using variance measurements differed by a factor of approximately two (scale equivalence = 648.7 m, theoretical = 1388.1 m). A six-step decision tree is presented to guide identification of monitoring variables and choice of method to calculate representative ranges in distributed networks. This approach is applicable for networks of any size, in aquatic or terrestrial environments, and monitoring the mean or variance of any quantity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 25%
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 25%
Engineering 5 25%
Environmental Science 3 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 10%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%
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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,323,594
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#1,060
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,781
of 332,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#15
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 332,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.