Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Quantities of members by classifications.

Members are depicted in this diagram at the Categorical and Type levels of the PIT as members can be classified into such tiers regardless of Structure. At the Categorical level, Public made up the majority (61.6%, n = 2,199), followed by Scientists (24.4%, n = 872), Education and Outreach (12.3%, n = 440), and Commercial (1.6%, n = 58). At the Type level, Public-Interested Party made up the majority (53.6%, n = 1,915) whereas Scientist-Paleontologists made up just over 10 percent (11.1% n = 396).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Tweets and use of URL by category.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Retweets by category.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Network map following cluster analysis.

Clusters are partitioned and labeled as groups (e.g., G1, G2, etc.). Members within groups are indicated by nodes, which are proportional in size to their degree of control (i.e. betweenness) and colorized by Category. Interactions are indicated as grey lines between nodes.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The flow of messages across groups within the social world.

Members within groups are proportional in size to their degree of control (i.e. betweenness) and colorized by Category (Fig 2). New messages (i.e. tweets) are colorized by type.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

Network graph characteristics.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Top 10 members by betweenness.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Members with highest out-degree.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Members with highest in-degree.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Message types by category.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 4.

The flow of messages between groups by type.

The link between the nodes represents the flow of messages between groups calculated using InfoMap. The node sizes are proportional to the number of members within each group.

More »

Fig 4 Expand