The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Probabilistic alternatives to Bayesianism: the case of explanationism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00459 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Igor Douven, Jonah N. Schupbach |
| Abstract |
There has been a probabilistic turn in contemporary cognitive science. Far and away, most of the work in this vein is Bayesian, at least in name. Coinciding with this development, philosophers have increasingly promoted Bayesianism as the best normative account of how humans ought to reason. In this paper, we make a push for exploring the probabilistic terrain outside of Bayesianism. Non-Bayesian, but still probabilistic, theories provide plausible competitors both to descriptive and normative Bayesian accounts. We argue for this general idea via recent work on explanationist models of updating, which are fundamentally probabilistic but assign a substantial, non-Bayesian role to explanatory considerations. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 72% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 84% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 24% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 31% |
| Philosophy | 15 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Design | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 17 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,706,615
of 26,588,565 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,572
of 35,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,355
of 280,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#60
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,588,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 280,699 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.