Handbook of Sea‐Level Research 2015
DOI: 10.1002/9781118452547.ch31
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transfer functions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
56
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We chose the best model by cross‐validations using the leave‐one‐out method. The leave‐one‐out method removes each sample from the dataset, in turn, and then uses the remaining samples to predict the value of the removed sample (Kemp & Telford ). The results of the predictions are shown as cross‐plots between predicted and observed variables (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We chose the best model by cross‐validations using the leave‐one‐out method. The leave‐one‐out method removes each sample from the dataset, in turn, and then uses the remaining samples to predict the value of the removed sample (Kemp & Telford ). The results of the predictions are shown as cross‐plots between predicted and observed variables (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We determined the length of the modern training set's environmental gradient using detrended correspondence analysis (DCA), executed in the 'Vegan' package for R (Oksanen et al, 2012). The purpose of this analysis was to decide whether linear or unimodal approaches were more appropriate for developing a transfer function to quantify the relationship between assemblages of foraminifera and tidal elevation from the modern training set (Birks, 1995;Juggins and Birks, 2012;Kemp and Telford, 2015). Based on our gradient length exceeding two standard deviations (2.69 standard deviations), we developed a transfer function using a unimodal method (weighted averaging partial least squares; WA-PLS) in the software package C2 (Juggins, 2011).…”
Section: Modern Training Set Of Salt-marsh Foraminiferamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample preparation and counting followed the approach used for surface samples (except for staining with rose Bengal). The WA-PLS transfer function was applied to assemblages of foraminifera within LMR-9 to estimate PME with a sample-specific,~1σ uncertainty (e.g., Juggins and Birks, 2012;Kemp and Telford, 2015). To assess the ecological plausibility of the PME estimations, we measured the dissimilarity between foraminiferal assemblages in core material and their closest modern analogue using the Bray-Curtis distance metric (Jackson and Williams, 2004).…”
Section: Reconstructing Relative Sea Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies from the Americas (Jennings & Nelson, ; Gehrels, ; Williams, ; Guilbault et al ., ; Jennings et al ., ; Jennings & Weiner, ; Goldstein & Watkins, ), New Zealand (Hayward et al ., ), Australia (Horton et al ., ) and Great Britain (Horton, ; Edwards & Horton, ) support this notion. Although elevation is the basis for investigating changes in sea level, it must be acknowledged that elevation is not a true environmental variable (Kemp & Telford, ). Elevation itself is not able to exert a controlling influence on modern foraminiferal distributions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where ecologists aim to identify and understand the relative importance of controlling variables, palaeoecologists simplify this approach to explain patterns in terms of their relationship with target variables (Edwards & Wright, ), in this case extracting an ‘elevational signal’ from the data. Thus, in developing a transfer function to reconstruct sea‐level change, elevation is accepted as a surrogate variable for true controlling variables (Kemp & Telford, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%