A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy.
Impact in
- Ecology 338
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w5893708 →Countries where authors are citing A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy.
This map shows the geographic impact of A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy.. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy.
This network shows the impact of A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy..
About A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy.
This paper, published in 1986, received 767 indexed citations . Written by George H. Rosenfield and Katherine Fitzpatrick-Lins. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology (338 citations), Global and Planetary Change (267 citations), Media Technology (237 citations), Environmental Engineering (187 citations) and Atmospheric Science (170 citations). Published in Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w5893708.