| Title |
Big Data-Revolution oder Datenhybris?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00048-017-0179-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriele Gramelsberger |
| Abstract |
Genome data, the core of the 2008 proclaimed big data revolution in biology, are automatically generated and analyzed. The transition from the manual laboratory practice of electrophoresis sequencing to automated DNA-sequencing machines and software-based analysis programs was completed between 1982 and 1992. This transition facilitated the first data deluge, which was considerably increased by the second and third generation of DNA-sequencers during the 2000s. However, the strategies for evaluating sequence data were also transformed along with this transition. The paper explores both the computational strategies of automation, as well as the data evaluation culture connected with it, in order to provide a complete picture of the complexity of today's data generation and its intrinsic data positivism. This paper is thereby guided by the question, whether this data positivism is the basis of the big data revolution of molecular biology announced today, or it marks the beginning of its data hubris. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 75% |
| Researcher | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 50% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#21,141,111
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin
#151
of 220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,749
of 330,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.