DATA USE AND INTERPRETATION IN QUATERNARY SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION AND MAPPING STUDIES

Geologic database, mapping, and modeling applications generally allow for the use of best practices in the storage, analysis, and interpretation of geologic data and systems. We propose these best practices are easily used with quantitative observations, but less so with observations of lithology, or with interpretations. As part of a research program on innovation in geologic data and modeling applications, we asked 23 Quaternary geologists about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation practices they used in characterization or mapping projects. We explored their use of different data types, perspectives of data reliability, management of noisy data and ambiguous interpretations, and use of conceptual models. Through these interviews we found:

1. Most participants assessed and managed data reliability using informal and undocumented evaluations. A few geologists reported using evaluations of data reliability with software, scripts, or analyses.
2. Suitability assessments were routinely used to evaluate the relevance and reliability of each data type prior to inclusion in the project, and of each observation prior to its interpretation. The data type assessments were based on mapping goals. Observation assessments were based on the current conceptual model.
3. General sedimentary models, prior regional studies, and personal experience were used to generate conceptual models of mapping areas that constrained all interpretations. Conflicts between data values and the conceptual models were often used to justify changes to the models.
4. Observation uncertainty and the range of acceptable lithologic variation within the conceptual model were informally managed by most geologists, while the rationales used to resolve conflicts between data and conceptual models varied widely.

We use these insights to identify patterns in how participants managed and reasoned with their data, and to identify tools that might better support best practices in the management of lithologic observations, interpretations, and in conceptual model use. We discuss how adjustments of the data-use patterns identified within this study can better support data reuse concepts championed by the FAIR data movement, and the evaluation of data confidence advocated by the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program.