Countries citing papers authored by Keith Stenning
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Keith Stenning's research. 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 Keith Stenning with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Keith Stenning more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Keith Stenning. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Keith Stenning. The network helps show where Keith Stenning may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Keith Stenning
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Keith Stenning.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Keith Stenning based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Keith Stenning. Keith Stenning is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Stenning, Keith, et al.. (2016). Socratic dialogue as a teaching and research method for co-creativity?. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.15 indexed citations
2.
Chater, Nick, Klaus Fiedler, Gerd Gigerenzer, et al.. (2013). New frameworks of rationality. Max Planck Digital Library. 35(35). 59–60.
Stenning, Keith, et al.. (2002). The Natural History of Hypotheses About the Selection Task: Towards a Philosophy of Science for Investigating Human Reasoning.3 indexed citations
7.
Moore, Johanna D. & Keith Stenning. (2001). Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, August 1-4, 2001, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.2 indexed citations
8.
Moore, Johanna D. & Keith Stenning. (2001). Selection procedures for module discovery : exploring evolutionary algorithms for cognitive science. Science & Engineering Faculty.1 indexed citations
9.
Stenning, Keith, et al.. (2000). Heterogeneous reasoning in learning to model. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 22(22).3 indexed citations
10.
McKendree, Jean, et al.. (1998). Vicarious Learning: more than common ground.1 indexed citations
11.
Stenning, Keith & Jon Oberlander. (1997). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science. 19.6 indexed citations
Oberlander, Jon, Richard Cox, & Keith Stenning. (1995). Proofs as discourse: an empirical study. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 113–119.1 indexed citations
15.
Oberlander, Jon, et al.. (1995). AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.2 indexed citations
16.
Cox, R. A., Keith Stenning, & Jon Oberlander. (1994). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Conference Cognitive Science.148 indexed citations
17.
Robertson, Dave, et al.. (1994). Reasoning with Limited Unification in a Connectionist Rule-Based System. OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique).1 indexed citations
18.
Stenning, Keith & Jon Oberlander. (1992). Papers from 1992 AAAI Spring Symposium: Reasoning with Diagrammatic Representations. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.1 indexed citations
19.
Stenning, Keith & Jon Oberlander. (1992). Implementing Logics in Diagrams. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 88–92.1 indexed citations
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.