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
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
古墳時代中・後期における食器・調理法の革新
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nihon Kokogaku(Journal of the Japanese Archaeological Association), February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.11215/nihonkokogaku1994.6.25 |
| Authors |
宇野 隆夫 |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,529,883
of 25,852,155 outputs
Outputs from Nihon Kokogaku(Journal of the Japanese Archaeological Association)
#8
of 58 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,745
of 110,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nihon Kokogaku(Journal of the Japanese Archaeological Association)
#7
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,852,155 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 110,116 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.