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 |
Mutual Information for the Detection of Crush
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0028747 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Harding, Steve Gwynne, Martyn Amos |
| Abstract |
Fatal crush conditions occur in crowds with tragic frequency. Event organizers and architects are often criticised for failing to consider the causes and implications of crush, but the reality is that both the prediction and prevention of such conditions offer a significant technical challenge. Full treatment of physical force within crowd simulations is precise but often computationally expensive; the more common method of human interpretation of results is computationally "cheap" but subjective and time-consuming. This paper describes an alternative method for the analysis of crowd behaviour, which uses information theory to measure crowd disorder. We show how this technique may be easily incorporated into an existing simulation framework, and validate it against an historical event. Our results show that this method offers an effective and efficient route towards automatic detection of the onset of crush. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Thailand | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 4 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 16 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,067,048
of 24,619,747 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,903
of 212,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,630
of 252,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#136
of 2,936 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,619,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,830 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 252,135 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 2,936 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 95% of its contemporaries.