Although it appears that this question has been long resolved, there's actually quite a lot going on here (i.e. especially for such tiny question)--surprisingly lots!--so I'd like to outline everything involved so that, should anyone else have a similar issue, it'll be here for reference purposes.
I'll start with an edited down and more precise version of your original text:
It is reasonable to conclude that The negative
contribution done observed during the adopted growing
phase is was higher than it is was overall
in the others defects because there were of incidences
where the instances within that group (i.e., the adapted growing phase) for which entire objects were
mis-classified as terrain. , which we is
not (-or- cannot, should not be, etc.) expected by (-or- accounted for by, allowed
for by, permitted by, observed in, explained by, etc.) the segmentation
**(If I've correctly interpreted the meaning of this final, relative clause, then it should read more like this; if I'm not correct, you should consider removing it entirely because its meaning is unclear as it's written).
The primary problem with your excerpt is that it's far too
verbose. I believe that, in trying to make your writing appear
more formal and technical (which in and of itself would be fine/desirable), you've instead, in actuality, ended up sacrificing precision
for the sake of that formality. It is entirely possible to have both.
First, to directly answer your question, I would not recommend using
because of in a formal or technical paper. It is, at best, redundant. Merriam-Webster does indicate that because
is standard, but that does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate
for your technical writing (i.e., you've got to be sure that you're writing for the appropriate audience).
And second, because this is, in fact, technical writing, and because, as a
result, you'd want it to be as concise/precise as possible, I'd
recommend using only as many words as you actually need to
unambiguously convey your meaning. I'd also avoid overly complex
constructions, when, in fact, you can express the same thoughts both
very simply and directly.
Also, if you look at the definition of
its own, you'll see that
it's defined as for the reason that/of, thus making the
repetition of the word of completely unnecessary.
It would sound more formal without of; and since your sentence is
already on the long side, I'd suggest you omit it.
And while M-W does list because of as first appearing in the 14th
century, a quick Ngram
reveals that from 1500-Present, because has been by far more
common than because of since the mid-to-late 16th century.
Even if I adjust the time to from
it still shows because as being nearly three times as frequent.
Because of has been increasing in frequency, but so too has because overall.
POV: I personally dislike formal/technical papers written in the first
person, so I'd remove we as the subject of the final clause (you might be able to remove that last clause altogether). If, however, you'd prefer to write in the 1st rather
than the 3rd person, you can; you'd just need to rephrase it as
which/that we wouldn't ordinarily expect. It's far more important to keep your POV consistent throughout the entire body.
Also, you have a very, very, brief tense shift taking place in your example. You switch back-and-forth--almost unnoticed--between the present and the past.
You'll need to decide which tense is more appropriate to use and
stick with it throughout your paper. It is--in the right
context--fine switch tenses, but I wouldn't in this example.
construction that you've used in your first sentence uses is more problematic, though.
sentences--which usually consist of existential clauses--are constructed in the following format/order:
Expletive pronoun (i.e., dummy
pronoun) (i.e., it,
there, who/whom[ever], that,
solely as a placeholder in the first word of the clause) + [conjugated form of to be] + subject + object(s)--in precisely that order--rather than the typical, active-voice,
construction of Subject-Verb-Object (S-V-O).
Expletive sentences are existential in that they simply point to the
existence of something, be they concepts, relationships, states of
being, etc. Think of them as sentences that begin with giant arrows.
The expletive is simply a pointing device of sorts.
While it is OK to use that construction in formal writing, you
should be careful how you use it. I think you can express this
thought more directly in active voice instead. If it's possible to construct the sentence easily and straightforwardly without the expletive pronoun or existential clause, it's probably best to do so.
A quick word on which versus that: when you're using a relative
pronoun: you should only use which for non-restrictive clauses
(i.e. clauses that introduce non-essential information, which are
separated by a comma, parentheses, em-dashes, etc.). Note that,
according to The Chicago Manual of Style Online, 16th
which and that are used interchangeably informally, because this is academic or professional, and because I'd be concerned about
others perceiving that I'd made an error when in fact I hadn't, I'd
avoid doing so. Per Chicago:
6.22 Restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses—“which” versus “that”
A relative clause is said to be restrictive if it provides information
that is essential to the meaning of the sentence. Restrictive relative
clauses are usually introduced by that (or who/whom/whose) and are
never set off by commas from the rest of the sentence. The pronoun
that may occasionally be omitted (but need not be) if the sentence is
just as clear without it, as in the second example (before “I”).
A relative clause is said to be nonrestrictive if it could be omitted
without obscuring the identity of the noun to which it refers or
otherwise changing the meaning of the rest of the sentence.
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are usually introduced by which (or
who/whom/whose) and are set off from the rest of the sentence by
Although which can be substituted for that in a restrictive clause (a
common practice in British English), many writers preserve the
distinction between restrictive that (with no commas) and
nonrestrictive which (with commas). See also 5.220 under that; which.
While a technical piece might be required to follow the APA
Style, Chicago is a great
comprehensive, general AmE style guide nonetheless.
And finally, I'd like mention that you should limit your use of
prepositional phrases. While they can be helpful by
clarifying/qualifying/quantifying your writing, too many will have
the opposite effect.
The negative contribution done by the adopted growing step is higher
than the other defects because of the incidences where the entire
objects were mis-classified as terrain
which we cannot expect by
If, for example, you don't specifically need
to end the above sentence in by the segmentation, then
don't. It's impossible for me to say whether that one clause is essential to the rest of the body of your work based entirely on two sentences. I'm not even sure that I fully understand the topic based on the limited contextual information available to me.
Only include it if you need to introduce the idea that
segmentation is a factor. Otherwise, it's superfluous.