Error and Uncertainty in Radiocarbon Measurements
Open accessAbstract
All measurement is subject to error, which creates uncertainty. Every time that an analytical radiocarbon measurement is repeated under identical conditions on an identical sample (even if this were possible), a different result is obtained. However, laboratories typically make only 1 measurement on a sample, but they are still able to provide an estimate of the analytical uncertainty that reflects the range of values (or the spread) in results that would have been obtained were the measurement to be repeated many times under identical conditions. For a single measured 14 C age, the commonly quoted error is based on counting statistics and is used to determine the uncertainty associated with the 14 C age. The quoted error will include components due to other laboratory corrections and is assumed to represent the spread we would see were we able to repeat the measurement many times. Accuracy and precision in 14 C dating are much desired properties. Accuracy of the measurement refers to the deviation (difference) of the measured value from the true value (or sometimes expected or consensus value), while precision refers to the variation (expected or observed) in a series of replicate measurements. Quality assurance and experimental assessment of these properties occupy much laboratory time through measurement of standards (primary and secondary), reference materials, and participation in interlaboratory trials. This paper introduces some of the most important terms commonly used in 14 C dating and explains, through some simple examples, their interpretation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Subjective decisions on whether to model averaged values, which data to include, how to model them, and which archaeological observations to incorporate all have an impact on the end date range.
“subjective decisions on whether to model averaged values24, which data to include, how to model them, and which archaeological observations to incorporate all have an impact on the end date range”
From Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
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
Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results
Taylor, B. N. (1994) · National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Technical Note 1297 · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.1297 · Cited by 2,833 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Ascough P, Cook G, Dugmore A. 2005. Methodological approaches to determining the marine radiocarbon reservoir effect. Progress in Physical Geography 29(4):532-47.
- Bevington PR, Robinson DK. 2003. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. 352 p.
- Burr GS, Donahue DJ, Tang Y, Beck W, McHargue L, Biddulph D, Cruz R, Jull AJT. 2007. Error analysis at the NSF-Arizona AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Β 259(1): 149-53.
- Cook GT, van der Plicht J. 2007. Radiocarbon dating. In: Elias SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier, ρ 2899-911.
- Donahue DJ, Linick TW, Jull AJT. 1990. Isotope-ratio and background corrections for accelerator mass spec- trometry radiocarbon measurements. Radiocarbon 32(2): 135-42.
- Gulliksen S, Scott EM. 1995. Report of the TIRI work- shop, Saturday 13 August 1994. Radiocarbon 37(2): 820-1.
- Mook W, van der Plicht J. 1999. Reporting l4 C activities and concentrations. Radiocarbon 41(3):227-39. Royal Society of Chemistry [RSC]. 2003a. Terminol- ogy-the key to understanding analytical science. Part 1 : accuracy, precision and uncertainty. AMC technical brief 13. Available online http://www.rsc.org/images/ briefl3_tcml8-25955.pdf. Royal Society of Chemistry [RSC]. 2003b. Is my uncer- tainty estimate realistic? AMC technical brief 15. Available online at http://www.rsc.org/images/ briefl5_tcml8-25958.pdf.
- Rozanski K, Stichler W, Gonfiantini R, Scott EM, Beu- kens RP, Kromer B, van der Plicht J. 1992. The IAEA 14 C intercomparison exercise 1990. Radiocarbon 34(3):506-19.
- Scott EM. 2003. The Third and Fourth International Ra- diocarbon Intercomparisons. Radiocarbon 45(2): 135- 328.
- Stuiver M, Polach H. 1977. Discussion: reporting of ,4 C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355-63.
- Ward GK, Wilson SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a cri- tique. Archaeometry 20( 1 ): 19-31.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption
Pearson, C., Sbonias, K., Tzachili, I., & Heaton, T. J. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33696-w · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scott, E. M., Cook, G. T., & Naysmith, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Scott, E Marian
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 427-440
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W1937619834
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Radioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques
- Keywords
- radiocarbon dating, measurement error, analytical uncertainty, counting statistics, precision, accuracy, quality assurance, reference materials, interlaboratory comparison, 14C ages
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
