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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Participation in ‘big style’: first observations at the German citizens’ dialogue on future technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Poiesis & Praxis, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10202-012-0119-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Decker, Torsten Fleischer |
| Abstract |
In 2010, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research started a series of citizens' dialogues on future technologies. In the context of the German history of public participation in technology-oriented policy making, these dialogues are unique for at least two reasons: The Federal Ministry retains the responsibility for the entire process and is heavily involved in its planning, organization and communication, and the number of participants and process elements is significantly higher than in most other participative events. The paper presents insights into the political background of the citizens' dialogues, its general concept as well as first observations from the dialogue rounds on energy and high-tech medicine. In addition, it discusses reactions of other political actors and expectations regarding legitimacy and representativeness of the dialogue results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 30% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 35% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 10% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
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 08 December 2012.
All research outputs
#15,256,901
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Poiesis & Praxis
#26
of 40 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,292
of 159,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Poiesis & Praxis
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 40 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one scored the same or higher as 14 of them.
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 159,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.