Marine chronology based on 14C dating on diatoms proteins
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Very small samples were analyzed using mass-dependent 'blank' values; the lower the mass of the sample, the larger the 14C age uncertainty, up to 3 ka for samples containing less than 0.1 mg of carbon.
“Very small samples were analyzed using mass-dependent ' blank ' values (34 -38). The lower the mass of the sample, the larger the 14 C age uncertainty, up to 3 ka for samples containing less than 0.1 mg of carbon.”
From A high-precision chronological model for the decorated Upper Paleolithic cave of Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, Ardèche, France (2016) · cites this paper as [35]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Hatté, C., Hodgins, G., Jull, A. J. T., Bishop, B., & Tesson, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- Marine Chemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 143-151
- ISSN
- 0304-4203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050133427
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Marine Chemistry (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
- Keywords
- radiocarbon dating, diatom frustules, last glacial cycle, paleoproxies, lake sediments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
