Open Access
Publication ahead of print
Nat. Sci. Soc.
Section Regards – Focus
Published online 29 July 2020
  • Arts K., van der Wal R., Adams W.M., 2015. Digital technology and the conservation of nature, Ambio, 44, Suppl. 4, S661-S673. [Google Scholar]
  • Baker K.S., Millerand F., 2010. Infrastructuring ecology: challenges in achieving data sharing, in Parker J.N., Vermeulen N., Penders B. (Eds), Collaboration in the new life sciences, London, Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  • Bourdieu P., 1997. Méditations pascaliennes, Paris, Seuil. [Google Scholar]
  • Devictor V., Bensaude-Vincent B., 2016. From ecological records to big data: the invention of global biodiversity, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 38, 4, 13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Edwards P.N., Mayernik M.S., Batcheller A.L., Bowker G.C., Borgman C.L., 2011. Science friction: data, metadata, and collaboration, Social Studies of Science, 41, 5, 667-690. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ellis R., Waterton C., 2004. Environmental citizenship in the making: the participation of volunteer naturalists in UK biological recording and biodiversity policy, Science and Public Policy, 31, 2, 95-105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fortier A., Alphandéry P., 2017. La maîtrise des données, un enjeu majeur pour les associations naturalistes à l’heure de la gouvernance de la biodiversité, Revue française d’administration publique, 163, 3, 587-598. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gitelman L., 2013. “Raw Data” is an oxymoron, Cambridge/London, The MIT Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Granjou C., Mauz I., 2009. Quand l’identité de l’objet-frontière se construit chemin faisant. Le cas de l’estimation de l’effectif de la population de loups en France, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3, 1, 29-49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hackett E.J., Parker J.N., Conz D., Rhoten D., Parker A., 2008. Ecology transformed: the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and the changing patterns of ecological research, in Olson G.M., Zimmerman A.S., Bos N. (Eds), Scientific collaboration on the Internet, Cambridge/London, The MIT Press, 277-296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kitchin R., 2014. The data revolution. Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences, London, Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Latour B., 1993. Le topofil de Boa Vista ou la référence scientifique-montage photophilosophique, in Conein B., Thévenot L., Dodier N. (Eds), Les objets dans l’action. De la maison au laboratoire, Paris, Éditions de l’EHESS, 187-216. [Google Scholar]
  • Lawrence A., Turnhout E., 2010. Personal meaning in the public sphere. The standardisation and rationalisation of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands, Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 4, 353-360. [Google Scholar]
  • Loison A., Appolinaire J., Jullien J.-M., Dubray D., 2006. How reliable are total counts to detect trends in population size of chamois Rupicapra rupicapra and R. pyrenaica?, Wildlife Biology, 12, 1, 77-88. [Google Scholar]
  • Lorimer J., 2008. Counting corncrakes. The affective science of the UK corncrake census, Social Studies of Science, 38, 3, 377-405. [Google Scholar]
  • Maris V., 2018. La part sauvage du monde, Paris, Seuil. [Google Scholar]
  • Meine C., Soulé M., Noss R., 2006. A mission-driven discipline: the growth of conservation biology, Conservation Biology, 20, 3, 631-651. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Riopel A., 2018. Des phoques océanographes en Antarctique, Le Monde, 6 juin, supplément Science et Médecine. [Google Scholar]
  • Sandbrook C., 2015. The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation, Ambio, 44, Suppl. 4, S636-S647. [Google Scholar]
  • Sarkar I.N., 2009. Biodiversity informatics: the emergence of a field, BMC Bioinformatics, 10, Suppl. 14, S1. [Google Scholar]
  • Soberon J., Peterson A.T., 2004. Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359, 1444, 689-698. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Strasser B.J., 2011. Data-driven sciences: from wonder cabinets to electronic databases, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 1, 85-87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Strasser B., Edwards P.N., 2017. Big data is the answer. But what is the question?, Osiris, 32, 1, 328-345. [Google Scholar]
  • Sutherland W.J., Pullin A.S., Dolman P.M., Knight T.M., 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 6, 305-308. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Turnhout E., Boonman-Berson S., 2011. Databases, scaling practices, and the globalization of biodiversity, Ecology and Society, 16, 1, 35. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zimmerman A.S., 2008. New knowledge from old data. The role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data, Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 5, 631-652. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.