Watts and Strogatz cited 27 articles that ranged from physics multidisciplinary and mathematical to computer science information systems. The article itself was cited 8749 times. The top three authors who cited Watts and Strogatz’s article were Chen Gr, Wang Bh, and Zhou T. The journals that tend to cite this article the most were in areas of physics, sciences and mathematics while the least being tropical medicine, surgery and spectroscopy. There is an upward trend of number of citations (ie. it actually went up 40 times within 2 days this year).

Watts and Strogatz ‘s text was cited 27 times according to the citation tracker. We found that the article itself was used by other authors 8,749 times. The type of works that Watts and Strogatz cited themselves were math and science.

The title of this article is Collective Dynamics of “Small-World” Networks. The article is related to physics and sciences. Watts and Strogatz use 27 cited references to write this article. This article was cited  8749 times. Chen Gr, Wang Bh, and Zhou T are the top 3 authors who cite this article. Physic journals are most cited and natural science is a moderate amount. Also this article was cited by article that dealing with society at the least. Since book was published, the number of citations is increasing ever year.

For their article on small world networks, Watts and Strogatz cited 27 sources.  Interestingly enough, a lot of these sources were in the biology field.  Many sources, in turn, cited this article (8,749).  The top 3 authors were G.R. Chen, B.H. Wang, and T. Zhou.  And the kinds of journals that tend to cite this article the most are undoubtedly physics.  Journals that cite it a moderate amount include computer science, mathematics, and engineering.  Journals that cite it the least include pathology, paleontology, and electrochemistry.  The pattern of citations over time has steadily increased until this year, 2014.  The amount of citations this year extrapolated over the whole 12 month period, though, is still going to be less than 2013.  This may suggest new data has been found to supplant or supercede information in this article.

They were cited 8,749 times, mostly in physics and other sciences and they cited others 27 times, the articles that they cited can be generally characterized as Science: physics, psychology, mathematics and many more.

The top 3 authors that cite Watts and Strogatz are G.R Chen, B.H Wang and T. Zhou. Articles that are about science, physics and mathematics tend to cite Watts and Strogatz article. The journals that cite Watts and Strogatz the most is Physics Multidisciplinary, moderate citing in the Multidisciplinary Sciences area, and least citing in Biomedical, Nutrition and many more related to that field. It seems that the articles that cite Watts and Strogatz the most are the ones about physics and although other since related topics cite them there is a big difference in the amount of reference to their article.

Watts and Strogatz cited 27 sources in their article. On the other hand. Watts and Strogatz was cited 8,709 times by other authors. Of the 8,709 instances of citation, a large portion of it were general science related in the fields related to physics and computer science. The top three authors that cited Watts and Strogatz’s article were Chen, G. (76 times), Wang, B. (71 times), and Zhou T. (68 times).

The instances that cited back to Watts and Strogatz’s article were mainly physics journals. This is followed by a moderate amount by computer science, and the least amount by mechanic.

The title of Watts and Strogatz’s article: Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks. They cited 27 sources and most of them are about science, such as physics, math, and biology. In addition, this article was cited 8709 times by others. The top 3 authors who cited this article were Mr. Chen, Mr. Wang, and Mr. Zhou. Most journals who cited the article is about physics.  Journals about computer information systems cited them in a moderate amount. In addition, their citations pattern is in a trend going up.

During our research, we found that 27 sources were cited by Watts and Strogatz in their article “Nature”. Most of the subjects that we found that they cited were in the field of physics and general science. We saw that others cited Strogatz and Watts’ “Nature” article 8,709 times. The top three authors who cited this article are: Chen, G. (76 times), Wang, B. (71 times), Zhou, T. (68 times). In our findings, we saw that mechanics was the least cited article while physics was the most cited article. Computer science was cited a moderate amount of times.

•  Collective dynamics of small world network was cited 8,749 times.
• Physics was the top of the list of subjects citing this document (~47%)
• University of California System and University of Science Technology China has cited the document most.
• Top three author citing the documents are:

1. G R Chen (76 citation)
2. B H Wang (71 citation)
3. T Zhou (68 citation)

• This document is most cited by articles (94%) and least used by software reviews (0.029%).
• The document’s citation is increasing in a great speed. Last Tuesday it was 8709 citation and 2 days later Thursday it is 8749 citations.

Watts and Strogatz cited 27 sources. The disciplines and subjects that are cited seem to revolve around biology in terms of infectious diseases, genetic algorithms, nerves and cellular events. There were also a couple of sources that deals with psychology and spatial relations. This article is cited 8749 times and the top 3 authors who cite this article are Chen GR, Wang BH and Zhou T. The subjects that tend to cite this article are multidisciplinary physics, mathematical physics and physics of fluid plasmas. Over time it seems as though the article is cited more, in 2007 the percentage of citations was 8.343% (of the total citations) and in 2013 it was 13.925%, thus showing an increase in the times the article is cited over time.

The article was cited 8749 times, most frequently by physicists, and scientists. Therefore, the journals that published this article are all scientifically affiliated.

The article is titled “Collective Dynamics of Small-world networks”. In terms of physics, perhaps this article is explaining the physical connectedness we feel from being in a small network together. I suppose through relativity and energy (the few physics terms I know).

In this article, Watts and Strogatz cited 27 references. These citations are in reference to science and math related sources, such as nature, biology, ecology, and mathematical biosciences.
In addition, Watts and Strogatz’s article was cited 8,749 times. The top three authors who cite Watts and Strogatz’s article were Chen Gr, Wang Bh, and Zhou T. Citations regarding this article increased gradually over time.

Watts and Strogatz cited 27 sources and were cited 8,709 times. Most of the citations were under physics multidisciplinary, physics mathematical and computer science information systems. The top three authors that cite Watts and Strogatz are Chen Gr, Wang Bh, and Zhou T. There is an upward trend in these citations. This article is more based on mathematical and physics theory with some genetics.

The issue that we would ideally like to raise awareness about is cancer. A lot of people are aware of what cancer is but not a lot know how much their help and donation can do for the cancer patients and their families.

In order to spread the word about Relay for Life, the social media platforms and social tools that we would like to use are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, school online news letter, the Ticker and other organizations in the school.

The pros of the social media platforms that we have listed: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube:

1. Many of our peers use them. Our generation and society in general check these platforms frequently throughout the day. This makes it easier for people to gain awareness in a short amount of time.
2. The word can be spread to those we don’t know by reposts, shares and likes by those we can reach on these social media platforms.
3. All three of these platforms utilize hash tags allowing it to be more convenient and easier to group ideas and people together.
4. Notifications that can be used to remind individuals about the issue and the related events that may be taking place in the future.
5. A video can be created to conceptualize the issue which may be more appealing for the viewers than having to read a flier or look at a picture.

The cons of these social media platforms are:

1. Not everybody has access to these platforms or have the knowledge to use these platforms.
2. Many people may see the notification or the post but don’t bother to take a second look since it may not necessarily peak their interest.
3. It can be seen to target more of the younger generation that are more adept to the new social networks.

The pros for social tools such as school newsletters and organizations are:

1. Everyone has access to a free newsletter and school newspaper in print or through email.
2. Many school organizations have individuals that are in different clubs and groups.
3. The individuals that are in multiple organizations and can spread information on the issues and the events easily. When individuals are intertwined in different organizations they form bonds with others and can make connections between the issue and those in their network.

The cons about these social tools:

1. Not everyone reads the newsletters and most either don’t take a newspaper or they either toss them right after receiving them.
2. Some members may not have attended the meetings when the issue is brought up.
3. Not all organizations give brief overviews of what may have happened in the last meeting if someone had missed a meeting.

Certain communication tools such as Myspace and Tumblr would not be a communication tool that we would choose to advocate our issue because the internet has trends. In order to maximize the number of people we can reach to we need to keep up with internet trends. Not a lot of people are using Myspace and Tumblr, and quite frankly these types of communication tools and platforms are not idea to spread the word. It may be used for social networking but it’s not ideal since it’s mostly for friends and reposting images.

Organizing for this issue in the days pre web would have been more difficult. We would resort to word of mouth, posters or fliers. This would mean that we wouldn’t be able to reach out to a larger range of people. The extent of how much we would be able to do to advocate for this issue would have been limited to how much people are willing to spread the word by mouth, how many are actually willing to take the time to listen and accept the fliers or read the posters.

Problem: MTA should operate more efficiently, they should have the train schedule at every stop (i.e. 6 train, 1,2,3 train).

Communication Tools: Change.org , Facebook, Twitter.

Pros:

Change.org – it is easy to use for us to start a petition to get MTA to make adjustments

Facebook – we can use it to spread the message and share the link to change.org to make people more aware of the event and sign the peition

Twitter – can be used on updates for the events should be free

Cons:

Change.org – petition might not work

Facebook/ Twitter – The population of Facebook is declining and people might just scroll past it without looking. Also even if people were to view the event they might not sign the petition. It will take MTA  a long time to create the app. A big problem for social media such as Facebook and Twitter is not everyone has one or does not check it frequently.

-Other forms of social media/communications are not as useful. For example Emails sometimes go to spam and people just delete it. People also have various Email accounts. Instagram, snapchat, myspace and many more are not as useful because it is picture or video orientated which is not as affected. Also other media’s population have already declined.

In the past without social media:

-We can give out flyers

-Pester people on the street with peition

-Protest/riots

-radio/television: commercials or podcast

-overall word of mouth

While this may seem like a minor issue, the fact that the faucets in the Baruch bathrooms do not stay on for longer than a few seconds at most is something that affects everyone in the Baruch community and peeves many.  It is a sanitary issue as much as it is an annoyance because one can never easily fully wash their hands.

The social media we can use to increase awareness are Vines. We can hold a Vine “challenge” where the users attempt to make a Vine video with a Baruch bathroom faucet lasting as long as the 7 seconds that a Vine records.

We can also create a petition on change.org for the increase of faucet running time. We could also put up memes of faucet problems on various social media websites and Instagram with hashtags.

The cons of Instagram would be that it is limited because only people who are following you would see the pictures.

E-cigarettes are a good alternative for addicted smokers. However, E-cigarettes have been misused by kids because the producers of the E-cigarettes added colors and flavors to attract younger individuals. Although E-cigarettes don’t contain the chemicals as a regular cigarette, it does contain nicotine which is an addictive substance which may be a gateway to more harmful drugs in the future.

We will use the following tools to inform teenagers the negative effects of E-cigarettes.
1) Facebook – platform for past users, current users, and potential users of E-cigarettes to share their personal stories or experiences with E-cigarettes

Pros:
1. Open platform so anyone can join the group (includes health experts and advocates)
2. Free, user-friendly, and widely used       3. Embed other channels of communication/media to share in a common platform

Cons:
1. Since anyone can join, some people might encourage the use of E-cigarettes through  private messaging members.
2. Spammers posting irrelevant information
3. Too many similar groups on Facebook so the power of our group is diluted.

2) YouTube – platform to create and share videos to effectively persuade teenagers not to use E-cigarettes

Pros:
1. Talking in videos is more effective, personal, and influential to get the message across
2. Easily accessible on a global basis

Cons:
1. Videos might be linked to other videos that encourage the use of E-cigarettes
2. Video titles can be copied to create misleading video

We are not using the following tools:
1) Instagram – it’s main use is for positive images instead of raising awareness
2) Vine – this platform is used more for comedic purposes
3) MySpace – nobody really uses MySpace anymore

In the Pre-1993 Era, we would use the following methods to promote the awareness of E-cigarettes:
1. passing out fliers to our local neighborhoods
2. holding a town/community meeting
3. promote through TV and radio commercials
4. advertisements in newspapers and magazines

1. What content is uniquely in the paper? Static advertisements

In the web edition? Video, live comments, search bar

2. What features and functionality are uniquely in the paper? Ability to make notes

In the web edition? Article responses from the readers, videos, updated weather information, updated content, easy access to previous issues and content, more interactivity with ads and whole newspaper in general.

3. What can you do with the print edition that you can’t do with the web edition?

What can you do on the web edition that you can’t do with the print one? Search for content easier with the search bar, save your articles, have it virtually anywhere without having to physically bring anything with you,

4. How would you compare overall the design aesthetic of the two? The web is more aesthetically pleasing, with live videos, a bright white backdrop, colors, and generally more interactivity; the print version has minimal colors, a drab gray backdrop,

5. What evidence can you find about ways that the web edition is received/responded to by readers online (both on the NY Times website and elsewhere on the web)? The amount of response comments on articles,

6. What if any evidence can you find that the readership of the print edition is not the same as the web edition?  The web edition’s ads and overall content are somewhat different than the print edition, and are geared towards that specific readership instead.