| Title |
Representing dispositions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2041-1480-2-s4-s4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Johannes Röhl, Ludger Jansen |
| Abstract |
Dispositions and tendencies feature significantly in the biomedical domain and therefore in representations of knowledge of that domain. They are not only important for specific applications like an infectious disease ontology, but also as part of a general strategy for modelling knowledge about molecular interactions. But the task of representing dispositions in some formal ontological systems is fraught with several problems, which are partly due to the fact that Description Logics can only deal well with binary relations. The paper will discuss some of the results of the philosophical debate about dispositions, in order to see whether the formal relations needed to represent dispositions can be broken down to binary relations. Finally, we will discuss problems arising from the possibility of the absence of realizations, of multi-track or multi-trigger dispositions and offer suggestions on how to deal with them. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Brazil | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 35% |
| Researcher | 4 | 24% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 3 | 18% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
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 22 November 2011.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#240
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,085
of 131,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 131,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.