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 |
The early history of chance in evolution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.09.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles H. Pence |
| Abstract |
Work throughout the history and philosophy of biology frequently employs 'chance', 'unpredictability', 'probability', and many similar terms. One common way of understanding how these concepts were introduced in evolution focuses on two central issues: the first use of statistical methods in evolution (Galton), and the first use of the concept of "objective chance" in evolution (Wright). I argue that while this approach has merit, it fails to fully capture interesting philosophical reflections on the role of chance expounded by two of Galton's students, Karl Pearson and W.F.R. Weldon. Considering a question more familiar from contemporary philosophy of biology--the relationship between our statistical theories of evolution and the processes in the world those theories describe--is, I claim, a more fruitful way to approach both these two historical actors and the broader development of chance in evolution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 16% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 32% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,047,954
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences
#505
of 1,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,690
of 279,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences
#13
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 279,166 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 69% of its contemporaries.