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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
To meat or not to meat? New perspectives on Neanderthal ecology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/ajpa.22659 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luca Fiorenza, Stefano Benazzi, Amanda G. Henry, Domingo C. Salazar-García, Ruth Blasco, Andrea Picin, Stephen Wroe, Ottmar Kullmer |
| Abstract |
Neanderthals have been commonly depicted as top predators who met their nutritional needs by focusing entirely on meat. This information mostly derives from faunal assemblage analyses and stable isotope studies: methods that tend to underestimate plant consumption and overestimate the intake of animal proteins. Several studies in fact demonstrate that there is a physiological limit to the amount of animal proteins that can be consumed: exceeding these values causes protein toxicity that can be particularly dangerous to pregnant women and newborns. Consequently, to avoid food poisoning from meat-based diets, Neanderthals must have incorporated alternative food sources in their daily diets, including plant materials as well. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 156:43-71, 2015. © 2014 American Association of Physical Anthropologists. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| France | 3 | 13% |
| Mexico | 2 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 255 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 22% |
| Researcher | 41 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 10% |
| Professor | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 17% |
| Unknown | 44 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 61 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 40 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 13% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 25 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 33 | 12% |
| Unknown | 60 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,737,161
of 24,490,209 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#430
of 3,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,963
of 372,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#12
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,490,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 372,690 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.