| Title |
Impact of meat and Lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nature16990 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katherine D. Zink, Daniel E. Lieberman |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 501 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 | 69 | 14% |
| Spain | 43 | 9% |
| Argentina | 21 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 15 | 3% |
| Brazil | 10 | 2% |
| India | 8 | 2% |
| Egypt | 8 | 2% |
| Canada | 7 | 1% |
| Mexico | 7 | 1% |
| Other | 73 | 15% |
| Unknown | 240 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 438 | 87% |
| Scientists | 41 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 374 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 359 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 66 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 17% |
| Researcher | 49 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 12% |
| Professor | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 68 | 18% |
| Unknown | 60 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 89 | 24% |
| Arts and Humanities | 37 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 28 | 7% |
| Other | 85 | 23% |
| Unknown | 76 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2040. 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 04 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,534
of 25,779,988 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#479
of 98,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50
of 315,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#7
of 976 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,779,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 315,689 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 976 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 99% of its contemporaries.