Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
The neuropharmacology of capsaicin: review of some recent observations.
Countries citing papers authored by Thomas F. Burks
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas F. Burks'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 Thomas F. Burks with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas F. Burks more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas F. Burks. 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 Thomas F. Burks. The network helps show where Thomas F. Burks may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Thomas F. Burks
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Thomas F. Burks.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Thomas F. Burks 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 Thomas F. Burks. Thomas F. Burks is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Burks, Thomas F., et al.. (2007). Greenhouse Robot Navigation Using KLT Feature Tracking for Visual Odometry. eCommons (Cornell University).11 indexed citations
7.
Burks, Thomas F., et al.. (2006). Using Modern Robot Synthesis and Analysis Tools for the Design of Agricultural Manipulators. eCommons (Cornell University).1 indexed citations
8.
Lee, Won Suk, John K. Schueller, & Thomas F. Burks. (2005). 1 Wagon-Based Silage Yield Mapping System. eCommons (Cornell University).16 indexed citations
9.
Burks, Thomas F., et al.. (2003). Assessment of yield monitor accuracy using the ASAE X-578 draft test standard.. 1285–1297.1 indexed citations
10.
Colliver, D. G., Richard S. Gates, Thomas F. Burks, & Han‐Zhong Zhang. (2000). Development of the design climatic data for the 1997 ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals. ASHRAE winter conference papers. 106.15 indexed citations
11.
Burks, Thomas F., S. A. Shearer, & John P. Fulton. (2000). Assessment of fertilizer application accuracy with the use of navigation aids.. 1–10.2 indexed citations
12.
Burks, Thomas F., et al.. (2000). Combine yield monitor test facility development.. 1–16.7 indexed citations
13.
Taché, Yvette, D. L. Wingate, & Thomas F. Burks. (1994). Innervation of the gut : pathophysiological implications. CRC Press eBooks.75 indexed citations
Shook, Jennifer E., Wieslaw M. Kazmierski, Victor J. Hruby, & Thomas F. Burks. (1988). Precipitation of spinally mediated withdrawal signs by intrathecal administration of naloxone and the mu-receptor antagonist CTP in morphine-dependent mice.. PubMed. 81. 143–8.4 indexed citations
Porreca, F., A. Cowan, & Thomas F. Burks. (1983). Differential efficacies of proposed kappa agonists on gastrointestinal transit in mice. Federation Proceedings. 42(3).1 indexed citations
Greenberg, Stan S., Philip J. Kadowitz, & Thomas F. Burks. (1982). Prostaglandins, organ- and tissue-specific actions. M. Dekker eBooks.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.