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 |
Chol Understandings of Suicide and Human Agency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11013-012-9252-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gracia Imberton |
| Abstract |
According to ethnographic material collected since 2003, the Chol Mayan indigenous people in southern Mexico have different causal explanations for suicide. It can be attributed to witchcraft that forces victims to take their lives against their own will, to excessive drinking, or to fate determined by God. However, it can also be conceived of as a conscious decision made by a person overwhelmed by daily problems. Drawing from the theoretical framework developed by Laura M. Ahearn, inspired by practice theory, the paper contends that these different explanations operate within two different logics or understandings of human agency. The first logic attributes responsibility to supernatural causes such as witchcraft or divine destiny, and reflects Chol notions of personhood. The second logic accepts personal responsibility for suicide, and is related to processes of social change such as the introduction of wage labor, education and a market economy. The contemporary Chol resort to both logics to make sense of the human drama of suicide. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 16 | 30% |
| Psychology | 8 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 June 2012.
All research outputs
#4,824,748
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#317
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,172
of 158,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 158,676 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.