From social network (centralized vs. decentralized) to collective decision-making (unshared vs. shared consensus)
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 7, Issue: 2, Page: e32566
2012
- 71Citations
- 236Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations71
- Citation Indexes71
- 71
- CrossRef62
- Captures236
- Readers236
- 236
Article Description
Relationships we have with our friends, family, or colleagues influence our personal decisions, as well as decisions we make together with others. As in human beings, despotism and egalitarian societies seem to also exist in animals. While studies have shown that social networks constrain many phenomena from amoebae to primates, we still do not know how consensus emerges from the properties of social networks in many biological systems. We created artificial social networks that represent the continuum from centralized to decentralized organization and used an agent-based model to make predictions about the patterns of consensus and collective movements we observed according to the social network. These theoretical results showed that different social networks and especially contrasted ones - star network vs. equal network - led to totally different patterns. Our model showed that, by moving from a centralized network to a decentralized one, the central individual seemed to lose its leadership in the collective movement's decisions. We, therefore, showed a link between the type of social network and the resulting consensus. By comparing our theoretical data with data on five groups of primates, we confirmed that this relationship between social network and consensus also appears to exist in animal societies. © 2012 Sueur et al.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; 10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.t001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84857667136&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393416; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g002; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032566; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g001; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032566; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032566&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know