ArticleSpringerPlus2015
On a heuristic point of view concerning the citation distribution: introducing the Wakeby distribution.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Science and Facebook: The same popularity law!PloS one · 2017Article
- Towards a simple mathematical theory of citation distributions.SpringerPlus · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper proposes a heuristic approach to modeling the cumulative distribution of citations of papers in scientific journals by means of the Wakeby distribution. The Markov process of citation leading to the Wakeby distribution is analyzed using the terminal time formalism. The Wakeby distribution is derived in the paper from the simple and general inhomogeneous Choquet-Deny convolution equation for a non-probability measure. We give statistical evidence that the Wakeby distribution is a reasonable approximation of the empirical citation distributions. AMS Subject Classification: 91D30; 91D99.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.