↓ Skip to main content

O neolamarckismo de Edward Drinker Cope e a ideia de progresso biológico no processo evolutivo

Overview of attention for article published in História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
O neolamarckismo de Edward Drinker Cope e a ideia de progresso biológico no processo evolutivo
Published in
História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, October 2017
DOI 10.1590/s0104-59702017000500009
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Edward Cope's neo-Lamarckist theory operated with an alternative mechanism to natural selection. For him, increases or decreases of the ontogenic stages produce characteristics that could be generated and integrated into the organism through the inheritance of acquired characters. Increasing body complexity, or not, this mechanism increased adaptive capacity. This could be interpreted as biological progress in a manner similar to the interpretation made by proponents of synthetic evolutionary theory. But unlike the latter, neo-Lamarkism relegated natural selection to a secondary role. This study aims to clarify the position of Cope in relation to the phenomenon of biological progress, as well as his strongly adaptational approach, proposing that this has been an indirect contribution to the articulation of the new evolutionary synthesis.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 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 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 1 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,822,544
of 27,394,475 outputs
Outputs from História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos
#348
of 1,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,840
of 336,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,394,475 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,642 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 71% 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 336,439 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.