A comparison of clustering methods for biogeography with fossil datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cluster analysis is one of the most commonly used methods in palaeoecological studies, particularly in studies investigating biogeographic patterns. Although a number of different clustering methods are widely used, the approach and underlying assumptions of many of these methods are quite different. For example, methods may be hierarchical or non-hierarchical in their approaches, and may use Euclidean distance or non-Euclidean indices to cluster the data. In order to assess the effectiveness of the different clustering methods as compared to one another, a simulation was designed that could assess each method over a range of both cluster distinctiveness and sampling intensity. Additionally, a non-hierarchical, non-Euclidean, iterative clustering method implemented in the R Statistical Language is described. This method, Non-Euclidean Relational Clustering (NERC), creates distinct clusters by dividing the data set in order to maximize the average similarity within each cluster, identifying clusters in which each data point is on average more similar to those within its own group than to those in any other group. While all the methods performed well with clearly differentiated and well-sampled datasets, when data are less than ideal the linkage methods perform poorly compared to non-Euclidean based k-means and the NERC method. Based on this analysis, Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean and neighbor joining methods are less reliable with incomplete datasets like those found in palaeobiological analyses, and the k-means and NERC methods should be used in their place.
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 | 0.032 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".