Factors affecting consistency and accuracy in identifying modern macroperforate planktonic foraminifera
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to
this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Fenton, ISBaranowski, U
Boscolo-Galazzo, F
Cheales, H
Fox, L
King, DJ
Larkin, C
Latas, M
Liebrand, D
Miller, CG
Nilsson-Kerr, K
Piga, E
Pugh, H
Remmelzwaal, S
Roseby, ZA
Smith, YM
Stukins, S
Taylor, B
Woodhouse, A
Worne, S
Pearson, PN
Poole, CR
Wade, BS
Purvis, A
Issue date
25/09/2018Submitted date
2019-10-07Subject Terms
TaxonomyMorphology
Sampling protocols
Repeatability
Identification
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Planktonic foraminifera are widely used in biostratigraphic, palaeoceanographic and evolutionary studies, but the strength of many study conclusions could be weakened if taxonomic identifications are not reproducible by different workers. In this study, to assess the relative importance of a range of possible reasons for among-worker disagreement in identification, 100 specimens of 26 species of macroperforate planktonic foraminifera were selected from a core-top site in the subtropical Pacific Ocean. Twenty-three scientists at different career stages – including some with only a few days experience of planktonic foraminifera – were asked to identify each specimen to species level, and to indicate their confidence in each identification. The participants were provided with a species list and had access to additional reference materials. We use generalised linear mixed-effects models to test the relevance of three sets of factors in identification accuracy: participant-level characteristics (including experience), species-level characteristics (including a participant's knowledge of the species) and specimen-level characteristics (size, confidence in identification). The 19 less experienced scientists achieve a median accuracy of 57 %, which rises to 75 % for specimens they are confident in. For the 4 most experienced participants, overall accuracy is 79 %, rising to 93 % when they are confident. To obtain maximum comparability and ease of analysis, everyone used a standard microscope with only 35× magnification, and each specimen was studied in isolation. Consequently, these data provide a lower limit for an estimate of consistency. Importantly, participants could largely predict whether their identifications were correct or incorrect: their own assessments of specimen-level confidence and of their previous knowledge of species concepts were the strongest predictors of accuracy.Citation
Fenton, I. S., Baranowski, U., Boscolo-Galazzo, F., Cheales, H., Fox, L., King, D. J., Larkin, C., Latas, M., Liebrand, D., Miller, C. G., Nilsson-Kerr, K., Piga, E., Pugh, H., Remmelzwaal, S., Roseby, Z. A., Smith, Y. M., Stukins, S., Taylor, B., Woodhouse, A., Worne, S., Pearson, P. N., Poole, C. R., Wade, B. S., and Purvis, A.: Factors affecting consistency and accuracy in identifying modern macroperforate planktonic foraminifera, J. Micropalaeontol., 37, 431–443, https://doi.org/10.5194/jm-37-431-2018, 2018.Publisher
The Micropalaeontological SocietyJournal
JOURNAL OF MICROPALAEONTOLOGYType
Journal ArticleItem Description
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.NHM Repository
ISSN
0262-821Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.5194/jm-37-431-2018
Scopus Count
Collections