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 |
Optimal incentives for collective intelligence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1618722114 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard P. Mann, Dirk Helbing |
| Abstract |
Collective intelligence is the ability of a group to perform more effectively than any individual alone. Diversity among group members is a key condition for the emergence of collective intelligence, but maintaining diversity is challenging in the face of social pressure to imitate one's peers. Through an evolutionary game-theoretic model of collective prediction, we investigate the role that incentives may play in maintaining useful diversity. We show that market-based incentive systems produce herding effects, reduce information available to the group, and restrain collective intelligence. Therefore, we propose an incentive scheme that rewards accurate minority predictions and show that this produces optimal diversity and collective predictive accuracy. We conclude that real world systems should reward those who have shown accuracy when the majority opinion has been in error. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 118 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 12% |
| Spain | 8 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 4 | 3% |
| Japan | 3 | 3% |
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| France | 3 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 57 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 88 | 75% |
| Scientists | 26 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 243 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 24% |
| Researcher | 40 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 12% |
| Professor | 15 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 50 | 20% |
| Unknown | 42 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 26 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 24 | 10% |
| Psychology | 23 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 79 | 32% |
| Unknown | 65 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 127. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#335,305
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#6,076
of 103,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,917
of 325,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#110
of 887 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. 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 325,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 887 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.