↓ Skip to main content

A social network analysis of primate groups

Overview of attention for article published in Primates, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
448 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
A social network analysis of primate groups
Published in
Primates, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10329-009-0153-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Kasper, Bernhard Voelkl

Abstract

Primate social systems are difficult to characterize, and existing classification schemes have been criticized for being overly simplifying, formulated only on a verbal level or partly inconsistent. Social network analysis comprises a collection of analytical tools rooted in the framework of graph theory that were developed to study human social interaction patterns. More recently these techniques have been successfully applied to examine animal societies. Primate social systems differ from those of humans in both size and density, requiring an approach that puts more emphasis on the quality of relationships. Here, we discuss a set of network measures that are useful to describe primate social organization and we present the results of a network analysis of 70 groups from 30 different species. For this purpose we concentrated on structural measures on the group level, describing the distribution of interaction patterns, centrality, and group structuring. We found considerable variability in those measures, reflecting the high degree of diversity of primate social organizations. By characterizing primate groups in terms of their network metrics we can draw a much finer picture of their internal structure that might be useful for species comparisons as well as the interpretation of social behavior.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 421 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 25%
Student > Master 82 18%
Researcher 65 15%
Student > Bachelor 50 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Other 63 14%
Unknown 49 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 235 52%
Psychology 33 7%
Environmental Science 32 7%
Social Sciences 24 5%
Computer Science 10 2%
Other 52 12%
Unknown 62 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#470
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,380
of 110,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 110,672 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 6 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.