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 |
Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2148-12-102 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pierre de Villemereuil, Jessie A Wells, Robert D Edwards, Simon P Blomberg |
| Abstract |
Uncertainty in comparative analyses can come from at least two sources: a) phylogenetic uncertainty in the tree topology or branch lengths, and b) uncertainty due to intraspecific variation in trait values, either due to measurement error or natural individual variation. Most phylogenetic comparative methods do not account for such uncertainties. Not accounting for these sources of uncertainty leads to false perceptions of precision (confidence intervals will be too narrow) and inflated significance in hypothesis testing (e.g. p-values will be too small). Although there is some application-specific software for fitting Bayesian models accounting for phylogenetic error, more general and flexible software is desirable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 3% |
| Brazil | 5 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 2% |
| Unknown | 241 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 76 | 28% |
| Researcher | 61 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 54 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 180 | 67% |
| Environmental Science | 24 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Unknown | 23 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 03 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,981,235
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#488
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,789
of 177,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#7
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 177,596 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.