ArticleSocial studies of science2024
Digital twins and the digital logics of biodiversity.
Article in Social studies of science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- FAIR digital twins for biodiversity: enabling data, model, and workflow integration.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
- The geo-politics of resilience: On the historical convergence between ecology, artificial intelligence, and corporate strategy.New media & society · 2025Article
- Fragmented Networks: Challenges in communication and cohesion of European Biodiversity Research Infrastructures.Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
- Designing Biodiversity Systems via Digital Kinships: Insights from Community Data Processes and Creative Practice.Computer supported cooperative work : CSCW : an international journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Biodiversity is a multidimensional concept that can be understood and measured in many different ways. However, the next generation of digital technologies for biodiversity monitoring currently being funded and developed fail to engage its multidimensional and relational aspects. Based on empirical data from interviews, a conference visit, online meetings, webinars, and project reports, this study articulates four digital logics that structure how biodiversity becomes monitored and understood within recent technological developments. The four digital logics illustrate how intensified practices of capturing, connecting, simulating, and computing produce particular techno-scientific formats for creating biodiversity knowledge. While ongoing projects advance technological development in areas of automation, prediction, and the creation of large-scale species databases, their developmental processes structurally limit the future of biodiversity technology. To better address the complex challenges of the global biodiversity crisis, it is crucial to develop digital technologies and practices that can engage with a wider range of perspectives and understandings of relational and multidimensional approaches to biodiversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.