Peak detection in sediment–charcoal records: impacts of alternative data analysis methods on fire-history interpretations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several decades, high-resolution sediment–charcoal records have been increasingly used to reconstruct local fire history. Data analysis methods usually involve a decomposition that detrends a charcoal series and then applies a threshold value to isolate individual peaks, which are interpreted as fire episodes. Despite the proliferation of these studies, methods have evolved largely in the absence of a thorough statistical framework. We describe eight alternative decomposition models (four detrending methods used with two threshold-determination methods) and evaluate their sensitivity to a set of known parameters integrated into simulated charcoal records. Results indicate that the combination of a globally defined threshold with specific detrending methods can produce strongly biased results, depending on whether or not variance in a charcoal record is stationary through time. These biases are largely eliminated by using a locally defined threshold, which adapts to changes in variability throughout a charcoal record. Applying the alternative decomposition methods on three previously published charcoal records largely supports our conclusions from simulated records. We also present a minimum-count test for empirical records, which reduces the likelihood of false positives when charcoal counts are low. We conclude by discussing how to evaluate when peak detection methods are warranted with a given sediment–charcoal record.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".