↓ Skip to main content

Value of sample information in dynamic, structurally uncertain resource systems

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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.
Title
Value of sample information in dynamic, structurally uncertain resource systems
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0199326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byron K. Williams, Fred A. Johnson

Abstract

Few if any natural resource systems are completely understood and fully observed. Instead, there almost always is uncertainty about the way a system works and its status at any given time, which can limit effective management. A natural approach to uncertainty is to allocate time and effort to the collection of additional data, on the reasonable assumption that more information will facilitate better understanding and lead to better management. But the collection of more data, either through observation or investigation, requires time and effort that often can be put to other conservation activities. An important question is whether the use of limited resources to improve understanding is justified by the resulting potential for improved management. In this paper we address directly a change in value from new information collected through investigation. We frame the value of information in terms of learning through the management process itself, as well as learning through investigations that are external to the management process but add to our base of understanding. We provide a conceptual framework and metrics for this issue, and illustrate them with examples involving Florida scrub-jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Other 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 36%
Environmental Science 6 24%
Psychology 2 8%
Mathematics 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#157,151
of 196,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,373
of 329,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,599
of 3,246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 329,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.