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 |
Névoas, vapores e outras volatilidades ilusórias dos cigarros eletrônicos
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0102-311x00139615 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liz Maria de Almeida, Rildo Pereira da Silva, Antonio Tadeu Cheriff dos Santos, Joecy Dias de Andrade, Maribel Carvalho Suarez |
| Abstract |
In this article, we analyze the discourse of electronic cigarette suppliers directed at convincing potential users (smokers, former smokers or never smokers) to acquire and use the new product. This is a qualitative, descriptive and exploratory study on sellers' discourse found in eight on-line sales websites which, between 2011 and 2013, had the highest search frequencies. The websites were identified through Google Trends based on the number of accesses and search frequencies related to electronic cigarettes. Our methodological reference was dialectical-hermeneutics. We categorized the empirical material within the "understanding/interpretation" scheme within four broad meanings: appropriation of the anti-smoking discourse; comparison between conventional and electronic cigarettes; appeal to the trustworthiness of science and projection of e-cigarettes' image. The analysis of these meanings configured the argumentative elements of the marketing discourse used by electronic cigarette makers and suppliers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,375,394
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#270
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,856
of 325,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#6
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 325,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.