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 |
The Bayesian boom: good thing or bad?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00765 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrike Hahn |
| Abstract |
A series of high-profile critiques of Bayesian models of cognition have recently sparked controversy. These critiques question the contribution of rational, normative considerations in the study of cognition. The present article takes central claims from these critiques and evaluates them in light of specific models. Closer consideration of actual examples of Bayesian treatments of different cognitive phenomena allows one to defuse these critiques showing that they cannot be sustained across the diversity of applications of the Bayesian framework for cognitive modeling. More generally, there is nothing in the Bayesian framework that would inherently give rise to the deficits that these critiques perceive, suggesting they have been framed at the wrong level of generality. At the same time, the examples are used to demonstrate the different ways in which consideration of rationality uniquely benefits both theory and practice in the study of cognition. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 28% |
| Researcher | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 36 | 31% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 9% |
| Philosophy | 9 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 24% |
| Unknown | 15 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#12,902,153
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,935
of 29,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,842
of 230,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#198
of 377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 230,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 377 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.