| Title |
From ecological records to big data: the invention of global biodiversity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40656-016-0113-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vincent Devictor, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent |
| Abstract |
This paper is a critical assessment of the epistemological impact of the systematic quantification of nature with the accumulation of big datasets on the practice and orientation of ecological science. We examine the contents of big databases and argue that it is not just accumulated information; records are translated into digital data in a process that changes their meanings. In order to better understand what is at stake in the 'datafication' process, we explore the context for the emergence and quantification of biodiversity in the 1980s, along with the concept of the global environment. In tracing the origin and development of the global biodiversity information facility (GBIF) we describe big data biodiversity projects as a techno-political construction dedicated to monitoring a new object: the global diversity. We argue that, biodiversity big data became a powerful driver behind the invention of the concept of the global environment, and a way to embed ecological science in the political agenda. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| South Africa | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Belgium | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 21 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 23% |
| Unknown | 36 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,913,620
of 24,561,012 outputs
Outputs from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#109
of 486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,202
of 326,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,561,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.