↓ Skip to main content

Implementing a concept network model

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Implementing a concept network model
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2019
DOI 10.3758/s13428-019-01217-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah H. Solomon, John D. Medaglia, Sharon L. Thompson-Schill

Abstract

The same concept can mean different things or be instantiated in different forms, depending on context, suggesting a degree of flexibility within the conceptual system. We propose that a feature-based network model can be used to capture and predict this flexibility. We modeled individual concepts (e.g., BANANA, BOTTLE) as graph-theoretical networks, in which properties (e.g., YELLOW, SWEET) were represented as nodes and their associations as edges. In this framework, networks capture within-concept statistics that reflect how properties relate to one another across instances of a concept. We extracted formal measures of these networks that capture different aspects of network structure, and explored whether a concept's network structure relates to its flexibility of use. To do so, we compared network measures to a text-based measure of semantic diversity, as well as to empirical data from a figurative-language task and an alternative-uses task. We found that network-based measures were predictive of the text-based and empirical measures of flexible concept use, highlighting the ability of this approach to formally capture relevant characteristics of conceptual structure. Conceptual flexibility is a fundamental attribute of the cognitive and semantic systems, and in this proof of concept we reveal that variations in concept representation and use can be formally understood in terms of the informational content and topology of concept networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 29%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 29%
Linguistics 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,575,817
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#291
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,505
of 364,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#15
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 364,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 73% of its contemporaries.