Cited by 30Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchRadioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques

Radiocarbon dating small carbonate samples with the gas ion source of AixMICADAS

Open access
Fagault, Yoann, Tuna, Thibaut, Rostek, Frauke, Bard, Edouard·2019·Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nimb.2018.11.018

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The 14C chronology of the Pakistan Margin record has been verified by analyzing different planktonic species of foraminifera.

    “In addition, the 14 C chronology of the Pakistan Margin record has been verified by analyzing different planktonic species of foraminifera (Fagault et al. 2019).”

    From The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP) (2020) · cites this paper as Fagault et al. 2019

    Section 3.5.2 (page unavailable) reports that different planktonic foraminiferal species from the Pakistan Margin core generally yielded agreeing ages, and that the new ages were generally compatible with the previous age model. Calling the chronology 'verified' overstates this preliminary result: one depth showed an apparent offset that the authors said required more data to assess. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. S. Shah, A. Pearson, Ultra-microscale (5-25 µg C ) analysis of individual lipids by 14 C AMS : Assessment and correction for sample processing blanks, Radiocarbon. 49 (2007) 69-82.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fagault, Y., Tuna, T., Rostek, F., & Bard, E.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Fagault, Yoann
Venue
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
455
Pages
276-283
ISSN
0168-583X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913793627
Cited by
30
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • Fondation du Collège de France
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 › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Radioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques
Keywords
radiocarbon dating, gas ion source, carbonate hydrolysis, foraminifera, planktonic foraminifera, deep-sea sediment core, sample size, contamination correction, background correction, coral, reservoir age, age bias, radiocarbon calibration, marine sediment, Late Holocene, Younger Dryas

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