The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methods of Comparing Classifications
Abstract
Species distribution models (SDMs) are numerical tools that combine observations of species occurrence or abundance with environmental estimates. They are used to gain ecological and evolutionary insights and to predict distributions across landscapes, ...Read More
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
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985) · Journal of Classification · doi:10.1007/bf01908075 · Cited by 8,219
NbClust : An R Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a Data Set
Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., & Niknafs, A. (2014) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v061.i06 · Cited by 3,396
Comparison of phylogenetic trees
Robinson, D. F., & Foulds, L. R. (1981) · Mathematical Biosciences · doi:10.1016/0025-5564(81)90043-2 · Cited by 2,701
Time-series clustering – A decade review
Aghabozorgi, S., Seyed Shirkhorshidi, A., & Ying Wah, T. (2015) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2015.04.007 · Cited by 1,826
An Examination of the Effect of Six Types of Error Perturbation on Fifteen Clustering Algorithms
Milligan, G. W. (1980) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02293907 · Cited by 1,162
Metadata
- Authors
- Rohlf, F. J.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1974-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101-113
- ISSN
- 0066-4162 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108354365
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.32
- 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: Methods of Comparing Classifications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.000533
- The paper
- Rohlf, F. J. (1974). Methods of Comparing Classifications. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.000533
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.
