↓ Skip to main content

Dental calculus is not equivalent to bone collagen for isotope analysis: a comparison between carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of bulk dental calculus, bone and dentine collagen from same…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Archaeological Science, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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.
Title
Dental calculus is not equivalent to bone collagen for isotope analysis: a comparison between carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of bulk dental calculus, bone and dentine collagen from same individuals from the Medieval site of El Raval (Alicante, Spain)
Published in
Journal of Archaeological Science, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jas.2014.03.026
Authors

D.C. Salazar-García, M.P. Richards, O. Nehlich, A.G. Henry

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 106 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 30%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 17%
Arts and Humanities 20 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 20 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 April 2014.
All research outputs
#9,631,936
of 12,040,225 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Archaeological Science
#1,490
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,586
of 192,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Archaeological Science
#28
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,040,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 192,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.