| Title |
Innovations in information management and access for assessments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Climatic Change, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10584-015-1588-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne M. Waple, Sarah M. Champion, Kenneth E. Kunkel, Curt Tilmes |
| Abstract |
The third National Climate Assessment (NCA3) included goals for becoming a more timely, inclusive, rigorous, and sustained process, and for serving a wider variety of decision makers. In order to accomplish these goals, it was necessary to deliberately design an information management strategy that could serve multiple stakeholders and manage different types of information - from highly mature government-supported climate science data, to isolated practitioner-generated case study information - and to do so in ways that are consistent and appropriate for a highly influential assessment. Meeting the information management challenge for NCA3 meant balancing relevance and authority, complexity and accessibility, inclusivity and rigor. Increasing traceability of data behind figures and graphics, designing a public-facing website, managing hundreds of technical inputs to the NCA, and producing guidance for over 300 participants on meeting the Information Quality Act were all aspects of a deliberate, multi-faceted, and strategic information management approach that nonetheless attempted to be practical and usable for a variety of participants and stakeholders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Estonia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 42% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Librarian | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 14 | 29% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 10 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,967,666
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Climatic Change
#5,232
of 5,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,971
of 297,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Climatic Change
#52
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 297,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.