[{"id":912,"title":"Cultural impacts of the biodiversity crisis and our disconnection from nature","sha":"fa8fea4b1199b93af46f0ca87ab5fda9","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Dramatic declines in global biodiversity -- i.e., the Biodiversity Crisis -- continue to motivate research on the causes and consequences of environmental degradation. High profile papers on declines in insect diversity and abundance, for example, allude to cascading negative effects on ecosystem services, including nutrient cycling, pollination, natural control of pests, and on the survival of insectivores. In a parallel and similarly complex (and probably compounding) phenomenon, sometimes referred to as Nature Deficit Disorder, humans are spending less time connecting with the natural world. These phenomena are likely having profound, measurable impacts on humans' creative cultural output.\r\n\r\nInspiration, for example, is another \"service\" that may be impacted by the phenomena described above. Insects, through their behaviors, colors, extended phenotypes, and ecological interactions, frequently catalyze and influence creativity. Insects are beautiful, lively, tranquilizing, scary, annoying, funny, etc. Fewer encounters with these arthropods, however, may lead to losses in their representation in art, poetry, music, dance, and biomimicry. Analysis of cultural outputs over time might already reveal signatures of degradation that echo declines seen in the natural world: references are less sophisticated, perhaps, and fewer taxa are represented. Contemporary references may also have a different tone (wistful or negative) than historical references.","created_at":"2022-02-11T16:40:09.322Z","updated_at":"2022-02-26T06:00:44.361Z","zenodo_id":6288546,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6288546","subject":null,"tags":["biodiversity","culture","poetry","literature","art","insects","arthropods"],"vote_count":0,"view_count":1,"score":0.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":164,"title":"Capturing reuse in altmetrics","sha":"8a5d2aecc5bbc5e751f41ad0e8d0b9c3","user_id":580,"state":"published","body":"Altmetrics are aimed at capturing the amount of attention a paper gets. The adoption has been significantly encouraged by services provided by, for example, Altmetric.com, ImpactStory, and PlumX, which serve the same role as Google Scholar for traditional metrics. The traditional metrics cover formal citations from primary and secondary information sources (papers, reviews, books), while altmetrics capture a wider range of sources to measure the amount of attention, like bookmarks, comments in blogs, PubMed comments, review sites, etc. Personally, I value not the count, but the overview of this attention. This attention is roughly divided into views, discussions, saves, citations, and recommendations, though various tools use related terminologies. However, both traditional citation metrics and altmetrics do not sufficiently cover reuse: citations reflect attention, but a paper can be cited for many reasons. The citing paper may agree, disagree, confirm, refute, or just cite the paper because to reflect some authority. Reuse, however, captures impact more directly: software that implements a method, databases that contain findings from a paper. Therefore, altmetrics services should start using altmetrics data from such sources, to capture knowledge reuse. Technologically, this is a no-brainer, but some social barriers have to be taken first.","created_at":"2015-05-23T09:30:30.735Z","updated_at":"2016-07-28T15:26:47.351Z","zenodo_id":30101,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17892","subject":null,"tags":["altmetrics","software","literature"],"vote_count":5,"view_count":1,"score":5.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null}]