↓ Skip to main content

The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM)

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 286)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, December 2009
DOI 10.1186/1742-4682-6-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L Abel

Abstract

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of xi is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Argentina 1 5%
Unknown 17 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 45%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 30%
Computer Science 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,141,957
of 25,173,778 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#25
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,696
of 179,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,173,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 179,527 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.