↓ Skip to main content

Quantum ergonomics: shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda

Overview of attention for article published in Ergonomics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Quantum ergonomics: shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda
Published in
Ergonomics, October 2016
DOI 10.1080/00140139.2016.1231840
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy H. Walker, Paul M. Salmon, Melissa Bedinger, Neville A. Stanton

Abstract

A paradigm is an accepted world view. If we do not continually question our paradigm then wider trends and movements will overtake the discipline leaving it ill adapted to future challenges. This Special Issue is an opportunity to keep systems thinking at the forefront of ergonomics theory and practice. Systems thinking prompts us to ask whether ergonomics, as a discipline, has been too timid? Too preoccupied with the resolution of immediate problems with industrial-age methods when, approaching fast, are developments which could render these operating assumptions an irrelevance. Practical case studies are presented to show how abstract systems problems can be tackled head-on to deliver highly innovative and cost-effective insights. The strategic direction of the discipline foregrounds high-quality systems problems. These are something the discipline is well able to respond to provided that the appropriate operating paradigms are selected. Practitioner Summary: High-quality systems problems are the future of the discipline. How do we convert obtuse sounding systems concepts into practical interventions? In this paper, the essence of systems thinking is distilled and practical case studies used to demonstrate the benefits of this new paradigm.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 37%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Unspecified 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 32%
Social Sciences 4 21%
Psychology 2 11%
Unspecified 2 11%
Computer Science 2 11%
Other 3 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,213,669
of 12,712,279 outputs
Outputs from Ergonomics
#119
of 1,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,825
of 285,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ergonomics
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,712,279 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 285,892 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 91% of its contemporaries.