↓ Skip to main content

Defining and simulating open-ended novelty: requirements, guidelines, and challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Theory in Biosciences, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
71 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.
Article details
Title
Defining and simulating open-ended novelty: requirements, guidelines, and challenges
Published in
Theory in Biosciences, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12064-016-0229-7
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The open-endedness of a system is often defined as a continual production of novelty. Here we pin down this concept more fully by defining several types of novelty that a system may exhibit, classified as variation, innovation, and emergence. We then provide a meta-model for including levels of structure in a system's model. From there, we define an architecture suitable for building simulations of open-ended novelty-generating systems and discuss how previously proposed systems fit into this framework. We discuss the design principles applicable to those systems and close with some challenges for the community.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Professor 9 13%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 24 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Physics and Astronomy 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 October 2023.
All research outputs
#7,457,138
of 27,289,371 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#60
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,243
of 317,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,289,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 317,777 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 70% of its contemporaries.
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 all of them