↓ Skip to main content

Bounds for randomly shared risk of heavy-tailed loss factors

Overview of attention for article published in arXiv, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions
Title
Bounds for randomly shared risk of heavy-tailed loss factors
Published in
arXiv, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10687-016-0248-2
Authors

Oliver Kley, Claudia Klüppelberg

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,787,798
of 9,723,837 outputs
Outputs from arXiv
#111,063
of 540,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,774
of 208,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from arXiv
#3,258
of 22,859 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,723,837 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 540,647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 208,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22,859 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.