>For instance, a lot of citations in my field (theoretical CS) are "attribution citations" that point the reader to the original paper that introduced a concept or proved a result
This is also common in modern biology. As the recent "Top 100 Papers" article in Nature News noted [1], the most cited papers in the life sciences are highly biased toward methods development.
The most cited paper is a great case study, the majority of molecular biologists have probably used some variation of the Lowry method, but I'm fairly certain most of them haven't actually read the original paper. However, it remains as an "attribution citation," whenever a Lowry-like method is used to quantify protein.
This is also common in modern biology. As the recent "Top 100 Papers" article in Nature News noted [1], the most cited papers in the life sciences are highly biased toward methods development.
The most cited paper is a great case study, the majority of molecular biologists have probably used some variation of the Lowry method, but I'm fairly certain most of them haven't actually read the original paper. However, it remains as an "attribution citation," whenever a Lowry-like method is used to quantify protein.
[1] -- http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224