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 |
“I Hope I Get Movie‐star Teeth”: Doing the Exceptional Normal in Orthodontic Practice for Young People
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Anthropology Quarterly, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/maq.12247 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anette Wickström |
| Abstract |
Orthodontics offer young people the chance to improve their bite and adjust their appearances. The most common reasons for orthodontic treatment concern general dentists', parents' or children's dissatisfaction with the esthetics of the bite. My aim is to analyze how esthetic norms are used during three activities preceding possible treatment with fixed appliances. The evaluation indexes signal definitiveness and are the essential grounds for decision-making. In parallel, practitioners and patients refer to self-perceived satisfaction with appearances. Visualizations of divergences and the improved future bite become part of an interactive process that upholds what I conceptualize as "the exceptional normal." Insights into this process contribute to a better understanding of how medical practices intended to measure and safeguard children's and young people's health at the same time mobilize patients to look and feel better. The article is based on an ethnographic study at two orthodontic clinics. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 26% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,728,636
of 24,508,104 outputs
Outputs from Medical Anthropology Quarterly
#207
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,890
of 406,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Anthropology Quarterly
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,508,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. 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 406,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.