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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
From Exceptional to Liminal Subjects: Reconciling Tensions in the Politics of Tuberculosis and Migration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9700-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jed Horner |
| Abstract |
Controlling the movement of potentially infectious bodies has been central to Australian immigration law. Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to tuberculosis (TB), which is named as a ground for refusal of a visa in the Australian context. In this paper, I critically examine the "will to knowledge" that this gives rise to. Drawing on a critical analysis of texts, including interviews with migrants diagnosed with TB and healthcare professionals engaged in their care (n=19), I argue that this focus on border policing, rather than resettlement and the broader social determinants of health that drive current rates of TB, paradoxically renders migrants diagnosed with TB as liminal subjects in the post-arrival phase. This raises ethical issues about who "matters," as well as dilemmas about what constitutes adequate care for the "Other," both of which go to the heart of the political economy of migration. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,892,761
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#225
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,397
of 395,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 395,185 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.