Ordination analysis in sedimentology, geochemistry and palaeoenvironment—Background, current trends and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ordination is the name given to a group of methods used to analyse multiple variables without preceding hypotheses. Over the last few decades, the use of these methods in Earth science in general, and notably in analyses of sedimentary sources, has dramatically increased. However, with limited resources oriented towards Earth scientists on the topic, the application of ordination analysis is at times suboptimal and misuse by authors can occur. This text was written for researchers with little to no experience with ordination with the aim of exposing them to the utility and the pitfalls of this branch of exploratory statistics. To do so, a detailed review of three ordination methods is offered: principal component analysis, non‐metric multidimensional scaling and detrended correspondence analysis. A survey of 163 publications in Earth science is presented, in which these ordination methods were used together with a summary of how, why and on what type of data ordination was used. With common mistakes outlined and misuses in those publications identified. Notably, issues were found with reproducibility, documentation, data set dimensions and transformations. Based on this survey, a recommended workflow is offered for Earth scientists who wish to apply ordination. Additionally, this article is accompanied by highly annotated R scripts for novice users to use these methods.
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".