↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
278 X users
18 Facebook pages
3 Google+ users


133 Dimensions

Readers on

396 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Social networks in primates: smart and tolerant species have more efficient networks
Published in
Scientific Reports, December 2014
DOI 10.1038/srep07600
Pubmed ID

Cristian Pasquaretta, Marine Levé, Nicolas Claidière, Erica van de Waal, Andrew Whiten, Andrew J. J. MacIntosh, Marie Pelé, Mackenzie L. Bergstrom, Christèle Borgeaud, Sarah F. Brosnan, Margaret C. Crofoot, Linda M. Fedigan, Claudia Fichtel, Lydia M. Hopper, Mary Catherine Mareno, Odile Petit, Anna Viktoria Schnoell, Eugenia Polizzi di Sorrentino, Bernard Thierry, Barbara Tiddi, Cédric Sueur


Network optimality has been described in genes, proteins and human communicative networks. In the latter, optimality leads to the efficient transmission of information with a minimum number of connections. Whilst studies show that differences in centrality exist in animal networks with central individuals having higher fitness, network efficiency has never been studied in animal groups. Here we studied 78 groups of primates (24 species). We found that group size and neocortex ratio were correlated with network efficiency. Centralisation (whether several individuals are central in the group) and modularity (how a group is clustered) had opposing effects on network efficiency, showing that tolerant species have more efficient networks. Such network properties affecting individual fitness could be shaped by natural selection. Our results are in accordance with the social brain and cultural intelligence hypotheses, which suggest that the importance of network efficiency and information flow through social learning relates to cognitive abilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 278 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 396 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Japan 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 367 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 100 25%
Student > Master 57 14%
Researcher 56 14%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 6%
Other 67 17%
Unknown 56 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 162 41%
Psychology 63 16%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Environmental Science 16 4%
Neuroscience 11 3%
Other 54 14%
Unknown 71 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 191. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
of 26,385,174 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
of 146,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 363,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
of 980 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,385,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 146,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 363,293 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 980 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.