Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm
Impact in
- Cultural Studies 124
- Authors
- Félix GuattariPaul Bains
- Journal
- Medical Entomology and Zoology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w88288682 →Countries where authors are citing Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm
This map shows the geographic impact of Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm. 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 Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm
This network shows the impact of Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm.
About Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm
This paper, published in 1995, received 596 indexed citations . Written by Félix Guattari and Paul Bains. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (187 citations), Cultural Studies (124 citations), Geography, Planning and Development (85 citations), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (80 citations) and Literature and Literary Theory (70 citations). Published in Medical Entomology and Zoology.
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/w88288682.