The Virtual Landscape of Geological Information Topics, Methods, and Rhetoric in Modern Geology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Virtual Landscape of Geological Information Topics, Methods, and Rhetoric in Modern Geology by Sarah Elizabeth Fratesi A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: H.L. Vacher, Ph.D. Victor R. Baker, Ph.D. Charles B. Connor, Ph.D. Anna H. Perrault, Ph.D. Jeffrey G. Ryan, Ph.D. Mark Stewart, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 3, 2008 Keywords: philosophy of geology, bibliometrics, content analysis, citation map, graphics, twigging, big science, hard science, clustering, text classification © Copyright 2008, Sarah E. Fratesi Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to those I know for whom curiosity is either a vocation or an avocation—especially my dad. Acknowledgments This is an unusual project for a geology dissertation and, as such, required the patience and tolerance of several people. First among these is Dr. Vacher, the kind of person who looks at moldy bread and sees only penicillin, and whose encouragement and enthusiasm are unmatched. Chuck Connor and Todd Chavez have been great cheerleaders and supporters, and my family and friends have made the past few years a great experience. Vic Baker, Anna Perrault, Jeff Ryan, and Mark Stewart made time to give input in this project. The graduate school of the University of South Florida Graduate School provided the fellowship that funded this research. Note to Reader The original of this document contains color that is necessary for understanding the data. The original dissertation is on file with the USF library in Tampa, Florida. Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures v Abstract viii 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Foundations of Geologic Philosophy 3 1.2. Making Change in Geology 7 1.3. The Science of Philosophy 10 1.4. Purpose and Structure of this Dissertation 13 2. Macrostructure of Geology 15 2.1. Introduction 15 2.2. Background 17 2.2.1. Twigging 17 2.2.2. Little Science, Big Science 20 2.3. Methods 21 2.3.1. Classification of Journal Articles by Title and Keywords 21 2.3.2. Clustering of Journals by Title and Keywords 27 2.3.3. Mapping of Journals by Citation Relationships 29 2.4. Results 31 2.4.1. Major Subdiscipline Clusters 31 2.4.2. Results of Cross-Validation 32 2.4.3. Citation Relationships among Journals 32 2.4.4. Volume of Geological Literature 36 2.4.5. Topic Trends in General Geology 40 2.4.6. Topic Trends in General Science 45 2.5. Discussion 46 2.5.1. Trunk and Twig 46 2.5.2. Little Geology, Big Geology 48 2.5.3. Discipline Drift 50 2.5.4. Pure Geology, Applied Geology 52 2.6. Conclusions 54 3. Microstructure of Geology 55 3.1. Introduction 55 3.2. Background 56 3.2.1. Hard Science, Soft Science 56 i 3.2.2. Geologic Rhetoric 60 3.2.2.1. Visual Elements of Rhetoric 61 3.2.2.2. Linguistic Elements of Rhetoric 63 3.2.2.3. Structural Elements of Rhetoric 65 3.3. Methods 65 3.4. Results 68 3.4.1. Use of Page Space 68 3.4.2. IMRD and other Structures 72 3.4.3. Citations 73 3.4.4. Graphics 74 3.4.4.1. Data Sources, Graphics Types and Graphics Functions 74 3.4.4.2. Observations of Theoretical Loading in Graphics 77 3.4.5. Linguistics 77 3.4.5.1. Metadiscourse 77 3.4.5.2. Readability 81 3.4.5.3. Observations of Theoretical Loading in Text 84 3.5. Discussion 86 3.5.1. Theoretical Loading 87 3.5.2. Hard Geology, Soft Geology 89 3.6. Conclusions 91 4. Discussion and Conclusions 92 4.1. Introduction 92 4.2. The Growth and Heterogeneity of Geology 94 4.3. Narratives and the Cognitive Tasks of Geologists 96 4.4. Hardness and the Crisis of Identity in Geology 100 4.5. Conclusions 104 References Cited 107 Appendix A: Tables of Data 121 Appendix B: Other Research Papers 199 About the Author End Page ii List of Tables Table 1. Geoscience journals included in the study. 22 Table 2. List of the top 30 words used in the classification model and the class that each word predicts. 26 Table 3. Earliest journals in this study. 39 Table 4. Visual types and knowledge claims in geological oral presentations (after Rowley-Jolivet, 2002, 2004). 61 Table 5. Metadiscourse categories, functions, and examples. 66 Table 6. GeoRef searches by ISSN number. 122 Table 7. Word list from classification exercise in Chapter 2. 124 Table 8. Confusion matrix from cross-validation results, (k = 1). 135 Table 9. Confusion matrix from cross-validation results, (k = 20). 139 Table 10. Similarity matrix for citation map. 142 Table 11. Articles in the corpus for the investigation of rhetoric in geological journals. 147 Table 12. Area of GSA Bulletin articles devoted to graphics. 161 Table 13. Graphics areas in subdiscipline journals. 163 Table 14. Graphics type and rhetorical role assigmnents for subdiscipline journals. 166 Table 15. Graphics type and rhetorical role assigmnents for GSA Bulletin. 178 Table 16. Results from Coh-Metrix analysis. 190 Table 17. Search results for the primary search terms. 218 iii Table 18. Ranked summary of search results for the top five geographic settings. 220 Table 19. Ranked summary of search results for all continents. 220 Table 20. Ranked summary of search results for the top 25 countries. 220 Table 21. Ranked summary of search results for the top 10 fields of study. 221 Table 22. Ranked summary of search results for the top 30 subject keywords. 221 Table 23. Guide to bibliography of spreadsheets in geoscience education through 2003. 230 iv List of Figures Figure 1. Spatial analogy for similarity between segments of text. 24 Figure 2. Distances between individual elements used for calculating the distance between clusters in average-linking clustering algorithm. 27 Figure 3. Example distribution of elements for clustering, and the dendrogram resulting from average-linking clustering. 28 Figure 4. Spatial arrangement of data from this study, showing approximate indifferentiation. A. Null structure of uncorrected data, exhibiting tight, disk-shaped structure. B. Data corrected with power transformation, exponent 0.2, showing increased clustering tendency. 30 Figure 5. Distribution curves of similarity values for data in this study under eight different power transformations. 31 Figure 6. Dendrogram showing clusters of geology subdiscipline journals. 33 Figure 7. Cross-validation confusion matrix for final classification scheme (k = 1) presented as a heat map. 34 Figure 8. Cross-validation confusion matrix for a preliminary classification scheme (k = 20) presented as a heat map. 35 Figure 9. Citation-based map of geology general and subdiscipline journals produced using 2-dimensional multidimensional scaling. 37 Figure 10. Citation-based map of geology general and subdiscipline journals produced using 3-dimensional multidimensional scaling. 38 Figure 11. Number of articles published each year in the 67 geology journals in this study. 39 Figure 12. Percentage of all general-geology articles by subdiscipline- journal classification. A. Classes whose relative influence decreased over the study period. B. Classes whose relative influence increased over the study period. 41 v Figure 13. Classification of articles from individual general-geology journals. 44 Figure 14. Percentage of all geology articles from general-science journals by subdiscipline-journal classification. 45 Figure 15. De Solla Price’s models for growth of scientific literature. A. Logistic curve. B. Stacked logistic curves characteristic of escalation. C. Oscillations that de Solla Price predicted would follow the big science era. 47 Figure 16. Distribution of article lengths of sampled papers overlain on a distribution of all article lengths in GSA Bulletin. 69 Figure 17. Percent area occupied by graphics in articles from 1950-2000 in GSA Bulletin and from the year 2005 in geological subdiscipline journals. 70 Figure 18. Number of equations, tables, and graphics per page in articles from 1950-2000 in GSA Bulletin and from the year 2005 in geological subdiscipline journals. A. Number of graphics per page. B. Number of tables per page. C. Number of Equations per page. 71 Figure 19. Number of citations and average age of citations in articles from 1950-2000 in GSA Bulletin and from the year 2005 in geological subdiscipline journals. A. Number of citations. B. Average age of citations. 73 Figure 20. Data sources, graphic types, and rhetorical role of graphics in articles from 1950-2000 in GSA Bulletin and from the year 2005 in geological subdiscipline journals. A: Types of data reported in the articles. B: Types of graphics used in the articles. C. Rhetorical role of graphics used in the articles. 75 Figure 21. Examples of stratigraphic sections showing increased dependence on standardized symbols. 78 Figure 22. The model domain, showing boundary conditions and aquifer parameters. 203 Figure 23. Results of parameter sensitivity analysis. A. Proportion of water discharging out of the sinkhole. B. Amount of recirculated seawater. C. The effect of changing freshwater input into the model Qin. D. The effect of changing aquifer thickness b. E. The effect of changing the kaq/kc ratio. 205 vi Figure 24. Salinities and flow regime within the freshwater wedge. A and B. Transition zone profiles through the sinkhole. C. Flow diagram of profile through centre of the sinkhole. 207 Figure 25. Percent of abstracts related to caves and karst at Geological Society of America meetings. 222 Figure 26. Ranked summary of the number of cave- and karst-related publications each year by journal. 223 Figure 27. Spreadsheet used to calculate crustal abundances of U-238 decay series.