Just Accepted
Exploring the Relationship between Basic Psychological Needs and Motivation in Online Citizen Science
Abstract
Understanding engagement with and motivations to contribute to online citizen science projects can improve user experience and aid in attracting and retaining users. This paper proposes that the fundamental grounding of self-determination theory, being the satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs, is a fruitful lens through which to understand experiences and motivation to take part in online citizen science. Using an online survey, this paper explores how volunteers in online citizen science experience satisfaction and dissatisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and how this relates to both their behaviour and motivations to take part. Results suggest that participation in online citizen science on the Zooniverse relates primarily to the satisfaction than dissatisfaction of needs, suggesting that taking part is psychologically beneficial to volunteers. Autonomy is the most supported need and relatedness the least. Whilst results are positive, we observe that measures of need satisfaction must be contextually relevant, especially given the complex nature of autonomy in online citizen science, to aid in further understanding of these relationships. Potential factors related to participation in the Zooniverse that could be enhanced to increase volunteer satisfaction and retention are discussed.
References
[1]
Ofer Arazy, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Oded Nov, Johannes Daxenberger, Martina Balestra, and Coye Cheshire. 2017. On the “How” and “Why” of Emergent Role Behaviors in Wikipedia. In CSCW’17, ACM, Portland, OR, 2039–2051.
[2]
Maria Aristeidou and Christothea Herodotou. 2020. Online Citizen Science: A Systematic Review of Effects on Learning and Scientific Literacy. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 5, 1 (April 2020), 11.
[3]
Heidi L Ballard, Emily M Harris, and Colin G H Dixon. n.d. Science Identity and Agency in Community and Citizen Science: Evidence & Potential. Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Learning.
[4]
Avinoam Baruch, Andrew May, and Dapeng Yu. 2016. The motivations, enablers and barriers for voluntary participation in an online crowdsourcing platform. Computers in Human Behavior 64, (November 2016), 923–931.
[5]
Sam Blickhan. 2021. Engaging Crowds: new options for subject delivery & interaction. Zooniverse. Retrieved September 22, 2023 from https://blog.zooniverse.org/2021/11/03/engaging-crowds-new-options-for-subject-delivery-interaction/
[6]
Samantha Blickhan, Coleman Krawczyk, Daniel Hanson, Amy Boyer, Andrea Simenstad, and Victoria van Hyning. 2019. Individual vs. Collaborative Methods of Crowdsourced Transcription. Journal of Data Mining and Digital Humanities Special Issue on Collecting, Preserving, and Disseminating Endangered Cultural Heritage for New Understandings through Multilingual Approaches, (December 2019).
[7]
Anne Bowser, Jenny Preece, and Derek Hansen. 2013. Gamifying Citizen Science: Lessons and Future Directions. In CHI’13, Paris, France.
[8]
Alex Bowyer, Veronica Maidel, Chris Lintott, Ali Swanson, and Grant Miller. 2015. This Image Intentionally Left Blank: Mundane Images Increase Citizen Science Participation. In Conference on Human Computation, AAAI, Palo Alto, CA.
[9]
Francesco Cappa, Federica Rosso, Luca Giustiniano, and Maurizio Porfiri. 2020. Nudging and citizen science: The effectiveness of feedback in energy-demand management. Journal of Environmental Management 269, (September 2020), 110759.
[10]
Beiwen Chen, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Wim Beyers, Liesbet Boone, Edward L. Deci, Jolene Van der Kaap-Deeder, Bart Duriez, Willy Lens, Lennia Matos, Athanasios Mouratidis, Richard M. Ryan, Kennon M. Sheldon, Bart Soenens, Stijn Van Petegem, and Joke Verstuyf. 2015. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion 39, 2 (April 2015), 216–236.
[11]
Stephanie Chesser, Michelle M. Porter, and Anthony G. Tuckett. 2019. Cultivating citizen science for all: ethical considerations for research projects involving diverse and marginalized populations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology (December 2019), 1–12.
[12]
Pedro Cordeiro, Paula Paixão, Willy Lens, Marlies Lacante, and Koen Luyckx. 2016. The Portuguese Validation of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale: Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations to Well-being and Ill-being. Psychologica Belgica 56, 3 (July 2016), 193–209.
[13]
Joe Cox, Eun Young Oh, B. Simmons, Gary Graham, Anita Greenhill, C. Lintott, Karen Masters, and Jamie Woodcock. 2017. Doing good online: the changing relationships between motivations, activity and retention among online volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly In Press, (2017).
[14]
Alycia Crall, Margaret Kosmala, Rebecca Cheng, Jonathan Brier, Darlene Cavalier, Sandra Henderson, and Andrew Richardson. 2017. Volunteer recruitment and retention in online citizen science projects using marketing strategies: lessons from Season Spotter. JCOM 16, 1 (January 2017), A01.
[15]
Kevin Crowston. 2017. Gravity Spy: Humans, Machines and The Future of Citizen Science. In CSCW’17, ACM, Portland, OR, 163–166.
[16]
Kevin Crowston, Carsten Østerlund, Tae Kyoung Lee, Corey Jackson, Mahboobeh Harandi, Sara Bahaadini, Scott Coughlin, Aggelos Katsaggelos, Shane Larson, Neda Rohani, Joshua Smith, Laura Trouille, and Michael Zevin. 2017. Knowledge Tracing to Model Learning in Online Citizen Science Projects. (2017), 10.
[17]
Kevin Crowston and Nathan R. Prestopnik. 2013. Motivation and data quality in a citizen science game: A design science evaluation. In HICSS’13, IEEE, Hawaii, 450–459.
[18]
Vickie Curtis. 2015. Motivation to participate in an online citizen science game: A study of Foldit. Science Communication 37, 6 (2015), 723–746.
[19]
Peter Darch. 2017. When Scientists Become Social Scientists: How Citizen Science Projects Learn About Volunteers. International Journal of Digital Curation 12, 2 (2017), 61–75.
[20]
Na'ama Dayan, Kobi Gal, Avi Segal, Guy Shani, and Darlene Cavalier. Intelligent Recommendations for Citizen Science. 8.
[21]
Edward L. Deci. 1972. The Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 8, (1972), 217–229.
[22]
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
[23]
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. The “what” and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry 11, 4 (2000), 227–268.
[24]
Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, and Geoffrey C. Williams. 1996. Need Satisfaction and the Self-Regulation of Learning. Learning and Individual Differences 8, 3 (1996), 165–183.
[25]
Liz Dowthwaite, Chris Lintott, Robert Houghton, James Sprinks, and Grant Miller. 2019. The Psychological Basis of Motivation to Take Part in Online Citizen Science. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
[26]
Daniel C Edelson and Sarah L Kirn. 2018. A report of the Designing Citizen Science for Science and Education Project at BSCS Science Learning. (2018), 39.
[27]
Alexandra Eveleigh, Charlene Jennett, Ann Blandford, Philip Brohan, and Anna L. Cox. 2014. Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. In CHI ’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Toronto, Canada, 2985–2994.
[28]
Alexandra Eveleigh, Charlene Jennett, Stuart Lynn, and Anna L. Cox. 2013. “i want to be a captain! i want to be a captain!”: Gamification in the old weather citizen science project. In Proceedings of the first international conference on gameful design, research, and applications, ACM, 79–82. Retrieved May 19, 2017 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2583019
[29]
Lucy Fortson, Karen Masters, Robert Nichol, E. M. Edmondson, C. Lintott, J. Raddick, and J. Wallin. 2012. Galaxy Zoo: Morphological Classification and Citizen Science. Advances in machine learning and data mining for astronomy 2012, (2012), 213–236.
[30]
Anita Greenhill, Kate Holmes, Chris Lintott, Brooke Simmons, Karen Masters, Joe Cox, and Gary Graham. 2014. Playing with science: Gamised aspects of gamification found on the online citizen science project-zooniverse. In GAMEON’2014, EUROSIS, Lincoln, UK.
[31]
Anita Greenhill, Kate Holmes, Jamie Woodcock, Chris Lintott, Brooke D Simmons, Gary Graham, Joe Cox, Eun Young Oh, and Karen Masters. 2016. Playing with science: Exploring how game activity motivates users participation on an online citizen science platform. Aslib Journal of Information Management 68, 3 (May 2016), 306–325.
[32]
J. Richard Hackman and Greg R. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley.
[33]
Mordechai (Muki) Haklay. 2016. Why is participation inequality important? In Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information, Cristina Capineri, Mordechai (Muki) Haklay, Haosheng Huang, Vyron Antoniou, Juhani Kettunen, Frank O. Ostermann and Ross Purves (eds.). Ubiquity Press, London. Retrieved September 6, 2023 from https://doi.org/10.5334/bax.c
[34]
Robert Houghton, James Sprinks, Jessica Wardlaw, Steven Bamford, and Stuart Marsh. 2019. A sociotechnical system approach to virtual citizen science: an application of BS ISO 27500:2016. Journal of Science Communication 18, 01 (January 2019).
[35]
Corey Brian Jackson, Kevin Crowston, Gabriel Mugar, and Carsten Østerlund. 2016. “Guess what! You're the first to see this event!”: Increasing Contribution to Online Production Communities. In GROUP’16, ACM, Sanibel Island, FL, 171–179.
[36]
Corey Brian Jackson, Kevin Crowston, and C. S. Østerlund. 2017. Working in the Shadows: Anonymous Contributions by Users in Citizen Science. ACM, New York, NY.
[37]
Corey Brian Jackson, Gabriel E. Mugar, Kevin Crowston, and Carsten Østerlund. 2016. Encouraging Work in Citizen Science: Experiments in Goal Setting and Anchoring. In CSCW’16 Companion, ACM Press, Sam Francisco, CA, 297–300.
[38]
Corey Brian Jackson, Carsten Østerlund, Gabriel Mugar, Katie DeVries Hassman, and Kevin Crowston. 2015. Motivations for Sustained Participation in Crowdsourcing: Case Studies of Citizen Science on the Role of Talk. In HICSS’15, IEEE, 1624–1634.
[39]
Charlene Jennett and Anna L. Cox. 2017. Digital Citizen Science and the Motivations of Volunteers. In The Wiley Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, Kent L. Norman and Jurek Kirakowski (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 831–841.
[40]
Charlene Jennett, Laure Kloetzer, Daniel Schneider, Ioanna Iacovides, Anna Cox, Margaret Gold, Brian Fuchs, Alexandra Eveleigh, Kathleen Methieu, and Zoya Ajani. 2016. Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication 15, 3 (2016).
[41]
Allison Kaufman. 2014. Let's Talk about Citizen Science: What Doesn't Work. AB&C 1, 4 (November 2014), 446–451.
[42]
Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. ACM Press, 1301.
[43]
Tae Kyoung Lee, Kevin Crowston, Mahboobeh Harandi, Carsten Østerlund, and Grant Miller. 2018. Appealing to different motivations in a message to recruit citizen scientists: Results of a field experiment. Journal of Science Communication 17, 1 (2018).
[44]
Tae Kyoung Lee, Kevin Crowston, Carsten Østerlund, and Grant Miller. 2017. Recruiting Messages Matter: Message Strategies to Attract Citizen Scientists. In CSCW’17 Companion, ACM Press, Portland, OR, 227–230.
[45]
Chris J. Lintott, Kevin Schawinski, Anže Slosar, Kate Land, Steven Bamford, Daniel Thomas, M. Jordan Raddick, Robert C. Nichol, Alex Szalay, Dan Andreescu, Phil Murray, and Jan Vandenberg. 2008. Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 389, (September 2008), 1179–1189.
[46]
Trent A. Mankowski, Stephanie J. Slater, and Timothy F. Slater. 2011. An Interpretive Study Of Meanings Citizen Scientists Make When Participating In Galaxy Zoo. CIER 4, 4 (March 2011), 25.
[47]
Andrew Mao, Ece Kamar, and Eric Horvitz. 2013. Why stop now? predicting worker engagement in online crowdsourcing. In HCOMP-13, AAAI, Palm Springs, CA.
[48]
Philip J. Marshall, Aprajita Verma, Anupreeta More, Christopher P. Davis, Surhud More, Amit Kapadia, Michael Parrish, Chris Snyder, Julianne Wilcox, Elisabeth Baeten, Christine Macmillan, Claude Cornen, Michael Baumer, Edwin Simpson, Chris J. Lintott, David Miller, Edward Paget, Robert Simpson, Arfon M. Smith, Rafael Küng, Prasenjit Saha, and Thomas E. Collett. 2016. Space Warps – I. Crowdsourcing the discovery of gravitational lenses. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455, 2 (January 2016), 1171–1190.
[49]
Frank Martela and Kennon Sheldon. 2019. Clarifying the Concept of Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfaction as the Common Core Connecting Eudaimonic and Subjective Well-Being. Review of General Psychology 23, 4 (October 2019), 458–474.
[50]
Philipp K. Masur, Leonard Reinecke, Marc Ziegele, and Oliver Quiring. 2014. The interplay of intrinsic need satisfaction and Facebook specific motives in explaining addictive behavior on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 39, (October 2014), 376–386.
[51]
Marina Milyavskaya and Richard Koestner. 2011. Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences 50, 3 (February 2011), 387–391.
[52]
Christopher P. Niemiec and Richard M. Ryan. 2009. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education 7, 2 (July 2009), 133–144.
[53]
Oded Nov, Ofer Arazy, and David Anderson. 2014. Scientists@Home: What Drives the Quantity and Quality of Online Citizen Science Participation? PLoS ONE 9, 4 (April 2014), e90375.
[54]
Victoria Palacin, Sarah Gilbert, Shane Orchard, Angela Eaton, Maria Angela Ferrario, and Ari Happonen. 2020. Drivers of Participation in Digital Citizen Science: Case Studies on Järviwiki and Safecast. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 5, 1 (October 2020), 22.
[55]
Lesandro Ponciano and Francisco Brasileiro. 2014. Finding Volunteers’ Engagement Profiles in Human Computation for Citizen Science Projects. Human Computation 1, 2 (December 2014).
[56]
Jennifer Preece. 2016. Citizen Science: New Research Challenges for Human–Computer Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32, 8 (August 2016), 585–612.
[57]
M. Jordan Raddick, Georgia Bracey, Pamela L. Gay, Chris J. Lintott, Carie Cardamone, Phil Murray, Kevin Schawinski, Alexander S. Szalay, and Jan Vandenberg. 2013. Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. Astronomy Education Review 12, 1 (2013).
[58]
M. Jordan Raddick, Georgia Bracey, Pamela L. Gay, Chris J. Lintott, Phil Murray, Kevin Schawinski, Alexander S. Szalay, and Jan Vandenberg. 2010. Galaxy zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astronomy Education Review 9, 1 (2010). Retrieved May 19, 2017 from https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2925
[59]
Jason Reed, M. Jordan Raddick, Andrea Lardner, and Karen Carney. 2013. An Exploratory Factor Analysis of Motivations for Participating in Zooniverse, a Collection of Virtual Citizen Science Projects. In HICSS’13, IEEE, Hawaii, 610–619.
[60]
Jason Reed, W Rodriguez, and A Rickhoff. 2012. A Framework for Defining and Describing Key Design Features of Virtual Citizen Science Projects. In iConference 2012, iSchools, Toronto, Canada, 623–625.
[61]
James A. Roberts and Meredith E. David. 2023. Instagram and TikTok Flow States and Their Association with Psychological Well-Being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking (February 2023).
[62]
Jakob Rogstadius, Vassilis Kostakos, Aniket Kittur, Boris Smus, Jim Laredo, and Maja Vukovic. 2011. An assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on task performance in crowdsourcing markets. In ICWSM-11, AAAI, Barcelona, Spain, 17–21.
[63]
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 1 (January 2000), 54–67.
[64]
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2017. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness (1 edition ed.). Guilford Press, New York.
[65]
Richard M. Ryan, Veronika Huta, and Edward L. Deci. 2006. Living Well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 9, (2006), 139–170.
[66]
Nailya R. Salikhova, Martin F. Lynch, and Albina B. Salikhova. 2020. Psychological Aspects of Digital Learning: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. CONTEMP EDUC TECHNOL 12, 2 (October 2020), ep280.
[67]
Hannu Salmi and Helena Thuneberg. 2018. The role of self-determination in informal and formal science learning contexts. Learning Environments Research (March 2018).
[68]
Henry Sauermann and Chiara Franzoni. 2015. Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 3 (January 2015), 679–684.
[69]
Shalom H. Schwartz. 2012. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1 (December 2012).
[70]
Avi Segal, Kobi Gal, Ece Kamar, Eric Horvitz, and Grant Miller. 2018. Optimizing Interventions via Offline Policy Evaluation: Studies in Citizen Science. AAAI, New Orleans, Louisiana, 9.
[71]
Avi Segal, Ya'akov (Kobi) Gal, Ece Kamar, Eric Horvitz, Alex Bowyer, and Grant Miller. 2016. Intervention strategies for increasing engagement in crowdsourcing: Platform, predictions, and experiments. In IJCAI-16, New York, NY.
[72]
Kennon M. Sheldon and Vincent Filak. 2008. Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology 47, 2 (June 2008), 267–283.
[73]
Kennon M. Sheldon and Alexander Gunz. 2009. Psychological Needs as Basic Motives, Not Just Experiential Requirements. Journal of Personality 77, 5 (October 2009), 1467–1492.
[74]
Kennon M. Sheldon and Jonathan C. Hilpert. 2012. The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motiv Emot 36, 4 (December 2012), 439–451.
[75]
Helen Spiers, Alexandra Swanson, Lucy Fortson, Brooke D. Simmons, Laura Trouille, Samantha Blickhan, and Chris Lintott. 2018. Patterns of Volunteer Behaviour Across Online Citizen Science. ACM Press, 93–94.
[76]
James Sprinks, Jessica Wardlaw, Robert Houghton, Steven Bamford, and Jeremy Morley. 2017. Task Workflow Design and its impact on performance and volunteers’ subjective preference in Virtual Citizen Science. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 104, (2017), 50–63.
[77]
Alexandra Swanson, Margaret Kosmala, Chris Lintott, and Craig Packer. 2016. A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images: Citizen Science Data Quality. Conservation Biology 30, 3 (June 2016), 520–531.
[78]
James L. Szalma. 2014. On the Application of Motivation Theory to Human Factors/Ergonomics: Motivational Design Principles for Human–Technology Interaction. Human Factors 56, 8 (2014), 1453–1471.
[79]
Patrícia Tiago, Maria João Gouveia, César Capinha, Margarida Santos-Reis, and Henrique M. Pereira. 2017. The influence of motivational factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities. Nature Conservation 18, (July 2017), 61–78.
[80]
Ramine Tinati, Markus Luczak-Roesch, Elena Simperl, and Wendy Hall. 2016. Because science is awesome: studying participation in a citizen science game. In WebSci’16, ACM, Hannover, Germany, 45–54.
[81]
Ramine Tinati, Markus Luczak-Roesch, Elena Simperl, and Wendy Hall. 2017. An investigation of player motivations in Eyewire, a gamified citizen science project. Computers in Human Behavior 73, (August 2017), 527–540.
[82]
Laura Trouille, Chris J. Lintott, and Lucy F. Fortson. 2019. Citizen science frontiers: Efficiency, engagement, and serendipitous discovery with human–machine systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 6 (February 2019), 1902–1909.
[83]
Netta Weinstein and Richard M. Ryan. 2010. When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of personality and social psychology 98, 2 (2010), 222.
[84]
Jamie Woodcock, Anita Greenhill, Kate Holmes, Gary Graham, Joe Cox, Eun Young Oh, and Karen Masters. 2017. Crowdsourcing Citizen Science: Exploring the Tensions Between Paid Professionals and Users. Journal of Peer Production 10 (2017).
[85]
Xinxue Zhou, Jian Tang, Tianmei Wang, and Yanlin Ma. 2017. Investigating the Impacts of Task characteristics in Gamified Citizen Science. In PACIS2017, AIS, Langkawi Island, Malaysia.
[86]
Planet Hunters Coffee Chat. Planet Hunters Coffee Chat. Retrieved August 12, 2022 from https://www.planethunters.coffee
[87]
Jovian Vortex Hunter explorer. Retrieved September 6, 2023 from https://jude.zooniverse.org/
Index Terms
- Exploring the Relationship between Basic Psychological Needs and Motivation in Online Citizen Science
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory
As high attrition rates becomes a pressing issue of online learning and a major concern of online educators, it is important to investigate online learner motivation, including its antecedents and outcomes. Drawing on Deci and Ryan's self-determination ...
Self-Determination Theory Applied To Museum Website Experiences: Fulfill Visitor Needs, Increase Motivation, and Promote Engagement
ECCE '23: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2023The rise of online experiences in the domain of cultural heritage offers new forms of interaction that are no longer limited by the physical presence of museums. However, sustaining online visitors’ engagement is challenging, and museum professionals ...
Beyond Intrinsic Motivation: The Role of Autonomous Motivation in User Experience
Motivation and autonomy are fundamental concepts in Human–Computer Interaction (HCI), yet in User Experience (UX) research they have remained surprisingly peripheral. We draw on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to analyse autonomous and non-autonomous ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
EISSN:2469-7826
Table of ContentsCopyright © 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Online AM: 10 December 2024
Accepted: 02 October 2024
Revision received: 23 July 2024
Received: 12 August 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 33Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)33
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)33
Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in