↓ Skip to main content

Using meta-quality to assess the utility of volunteered geographic information for science

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
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.
Title
Using meta-quality to assess the utility of volunteered geographic information for science
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12942-017-0113-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaun A. Langley, Joseph P. Messina, Nathan Moore

Abstract

Volunteered geographic information (VGI) has strong potential to be increasingly valuable to scientists in collaboration with non-scientists. The abundance of mobile phones and other wireless forms of communication open up significant opportunities for the public to get involved in scientific research. As these devices and activities become more abundant, questions of uncertainty and error in volunteer data are emerging as critical components for using volunteer-sourced spatial data. Here we present a methodology for using VGI and assessing its sensitivity to three types of error. More specifically, this study evaluates the reliability of data from volunteers based on their historical patterns. The specific context is a case study in surveillance of tsetse flies, a health concern for being the primary vector of African Trypanosomiasis. Reliability, as measured by a reputation score, determines the threshold for accepting the volunteered data for inclusion in a tsetse presence/absence model. Higher reputation scores are successful in identifying areas of higher modeled tsetse prevalence. A dynamic threshold is needed but the quality of VGI will improve as more data are collected and the errors in identifying reliable participants will decrease. This system allows for two-way communication between researchers and the public, and a way to evaluate the reliability of VGI. Boosting the public's ability to participate in such work can improve disease surveillance and promote citizen science. In the absence of active surveillance, VGI can provide valuable spatial information given that the data are reliable.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Professor 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 6 12%
Environmental Science 5 10%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#552
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,279
of 330,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.