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 |
Disability, inability and vulnerability: on ableism or the pre-eminence of ableist and biomedical approaches of the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of UFSC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1413-812320152110.07792016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anahi Guedes de Mello |
| Abstract |
Anthropology has increasingly questioned the hegemony of biomedical knowledge in ethical review processes of social research projects prevailing in Brazil, which was governed until 2012 by the Human Research Ethics Committee of each institution under the auspices of the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP). This was mandated through Resolution No. 196/1996 prevailing in 2012 when this field research was conducted. The scope of this study is to recount and reflect upon the barriers to obtaining approval in 2012 for my master's research project from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (CEP/UFSC) in Florianopolis. In this ethnographic experience, in the light of Crip theory, I observed how the "disability," "vulnerability" and "inability" categories are articulated to reveal the ableism and the primacy of the biomedical model in the case of an ethics review at UFSC regarding the participation and legal capacity of persons with disabilities as subjects of research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 125 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Professor | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 49 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 19 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Psychology | 11 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 52 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,760,017
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#101
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,001
of 332,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 332,576 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.