The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A statistical approach to evaluating distance metrics and analog assignments for pollen records
Abstract
The modern analog technique typically uses a distance metric to determine the dissimilarity between fossil and modern biological assemblages. Despite this quantitative approach, interpretation of distance metrics is usually qualitative and rules for selection of analogs tend to be ad hoc. We present a statistical tool, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which provides a framework for identifying analogs from distance metrics. If modern assemblages are placed into groups (e.g., biomes), this method can (1) evaluate the ability of different distance metrics to distinguish among groups, (2) objectively identify thresholds of the distance metric for determining analogs, and (3) compute a likelihood ratio and a Bayesian probability that a modern group is an analog for an unknown (fossil) assemblage. Applied to a set of 1689 modern pollen assemblages from eastern North America classified into eight biomes, ROC analysis confirmed that the squared-chord distance (SCD) outperforms most other distance metrics. The optimal threshold increased when more dissimilar biomes were compared. The probability of an analog vs no-analog result (a likelihood ratio) increased sharply when SCD decreased below the optimal threshold, indicating a nonlinear relationship between SCD and the probability of analog. Probabilities of analog computed for a postglacial pollen record at Tannersville Bog (Pennsylvania, USA) identified transitions between biomes and periods of no analog.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD
Williams, J. W., Jackson, S. T., & Kutzbach, J. E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0606292104 · Cited by 1,363
Self-citationSugita, S. (2007) · The Holocene · doi:10.1177/0959683607075837 · Cited by 758
A Metagenomic Approach to Characterization of the Vaginal Microbiome Signature in Pregnancy
Aagaard, K., Riehle, K., Ma, J., Segata, N., Mistretta, T.-A., Coarfa, C., Raza, S., Rosenbaum, S., Van den Veyver, I., Milosavljevic, A., et al. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036466 · Cited by 709
Theory of quantitative reconstruction of vegetation II: all you need is LOVE
Sugita, S. (2007) · The Holocene · doi:10.1177/0959683607075838 · Cited by 512
Pollen-based climate reconstruction techniques for late Quaternary studies
Chevalier, M., Davis, B. A. S., Heiri, O., Seppä, H., Chase, B. M., Gajewski, K., Lacourse, T., Telford, R. J., Finsinger, W., Guiot, J., et al. (2020) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103384 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- Gavin, D. G., Oswald, W. W., Wahl, E. R., & Williams, J. W.
- Venue
- Quaternary Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-367
- ISSN
- 0033-5894 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-0287
- OpenAlex
- W1991727646
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A statistical approach to evaluating distance metrics and analog assignments for pollen records. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0033-5894(03)00088-7
- The paper
- Gavin, D. G., Oswald, W. W., Wahl, E. R., & Williams, J. W. (2003). A statistical approach to evaluating distance metrics and analog assignments for pollen records. Quaternary Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0033-5894(03)00088-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.