Construct · 6 fields · 11 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningcollisioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to impact is collision.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A collision between bodies in which large contact forces act over a very short time and change their momenta. What matters is the impulse (the integral of force over the contact interval) not the force alone; a small force for long and a huge force for an instant deliver the same change in momentum. Goldsmith set out the rigid-body and wave treatments in 1960 and Stronge codified the modern energetic coefficient of restitution. Impact is an event, measured in newton-seconds, and it is over in milliseconds.[1][2]
The subjective distress that follows a specific life event, unwanted images and thoughts about it, and effort spent not thinking about it. Horowitz, Wilner and Alvarez fixed the meaning in 1979 with the Impact of Event Scale, which asks about one named event over the past week and yields intrusion and avoidance scores. The event is the blow and the impact is what the person reports afterwards; nothing about the event itself is measured. It is the mechanics metaphor with the collision left out and the aftershock kept.[3]
The average number of citations received in one year by items a journal published in the two preceding years. Garfield proposed a citation index in 1955 and, with Sher, built the impact factor in the early 1960s as a tool for choosing which journals to index; the 2006 JAMA paper is his own account of how it escaped that purpose. The number is a property of a journal, not of an article or author, and it says nothing about whether anything was changed by the work, only that it was mentioned.[4][5]
The difference between an outcome with a programme and the outcome the same units would have had without it. The counterfactual is never observed, so impact evaluation is the set of designs (randomised assignment, regression discontinuity, difference-in-differences, matching) that stand in a credible comparison group for it. Duflo, Glennerster and Kremer's 2007 toolkit made randomisation the default in development economics; Gertler and colleagues' World Bank handbook made the whole hierarchy of designs operational. Impact here is a causal quantity with a standard error, attributable to one intervention.[6][7]
Any change, adverse or beneficial, that a proposed project or policy is predicted to cause in the biophysical or social environment, assessed before the decision to proceed. The United States National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 created the environmental impact statement and the process spread to most jurisdictions within two decades; Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick's textbook is the standard account of screening, scoping, prediction, mitigation and monitoring. The impact is prospective and comparative: with the project against without it, in magnitude, extent, duration and significance. It is the only meaning here that is a forecast rather than a record.[10][11]
Next
Combine items across the impact scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct
Social entrepreneurship & impact investing
the lasting change in people's lives or a system that an organisation's activities produce, beyond its outputs and outcomes.The lasting change in people's lives or in a system that an organisation's activities produce, as distinct from what it does (outputs) and what happens next (outcomes). Bugg-Levine and Emerson gave the investing use its manifesto in 2011: capital placed to generate measurable social or environmental benefit alongside financial return. Ebrahim and Rangan argued in 2014 that most organisations should stop at outcomes, because impact in the strict meaning requires the counterfactual reasoning of evaluation research and few can supply it. In practice the word is used for any point on the logic-model chain, and the field's own theorists say so.[8][9]