Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- George StinyJames Gips
- Journal
- IFIP Congress
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w4721122 →Countries where authors are citing Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture
This map shows the geographic impact of Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture. 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 Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture
This network shows the impact of Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture.
About Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture
This paper, published in 1971, received 446 indexed citations . Written by George Stiny and James Gips covering the research area of Cognitive Neuroscience and Social Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Mechanical Engineering (169 citations), Building and Construction (141 citations), Architecture (119 citations), Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (84 citations) and Geology (82 citations). Published in IFIP Congress.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w4721122.