The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5–1,100°C) Using Carbonate‐Based Standardization
Open accessAbstract
The potential for carbonate clumped isotope thermometry to independently constrain both the formation temperature of carbonate minerals and fluid oxygen isotope composition allows insight into long‐standing questions in the Earth sciences, but remaining discrepancies between calibration schemes hamper interpretation of temperature measurements. To address discrepancies between calibrations, we designed and analyzed a sample suite (41 total samples) with broad applicability across the geosciences, with an exceptionally wide range of formation temperatures, precipitation methods, and mineralogies. We see no statistically significant offset between sample types, although the comparison of calcite and dolomite remains inconclusive. When data are reduced identically, the regression defined by this study is nearly identical to that defined by four previous calibration studies that used carbonate‐based standardization; we combine these data to present a composite carbonate‐standardized regression equation. Agreement across a wide range of temperature and sample types demonstrates a unified, broadly applicable clumped isotope thermometer calibration.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 36 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ANCOVA variably accepts/rejects the null hypothesis depending on the categorization of the single protodolomite sample.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Calcite-water fractionation in 18 O calculated from a subset of 20 samples with fluid δ 18 O data (Figure S5) agrees closely with the equations of Coplen (2007) and Daëron et al. (2019).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Coplen, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Daëron et al., 2019
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“these data define a linear 1/T 2 -Δ 47 relationship from 0.5°C to 1,100°C that is shown in Figure 1.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3. Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites York et al., 2004
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) fails to reject the null hypothesis that both types of samples are characterized by a single regression line at the 95% confidence level at our typical sample precision levels (1SE) of ∼10 ppm (p slope = 0.43, p intercept = 0.17; see Table S1 in supporting information for the full table of ANCOVA analyses).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The microbially mediated lacustrine calcites from Antarctic show no discernible offset from the overall trend”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regression through aragonite-containing samples (four samples < 6%; one sample = 38%; one sample = 78%) is statistically similar to the regression through all calcite samples (Figure 2b).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural and lab-precipitated samples fall on nearly identical regression lines (Figure 2a)”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When data are reduced identically, the regression defined by this study is nearly identical to that defined by four previous calibration studies that used carbonatebased standardization”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Δ 47 values for two extremely slow-growing samples re-analyzed for this study at LCSE on an Isoprime 100 mass spectrometer (see Text S3), respectively, from Devil's Hole, NV, USA, and Laghetto Basso, Italy (see Coplen, 2007;Daëron et al., 2019;Drysdale et al., 2012;Winograd et al., 2006), are within 0.001‰of the expected values based on the calibration from this study (Figure 3b).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Coplen, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Daëron et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Drysdale et al., 2012
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reprocessing data from recent calibration studies (Breitenbach et al., 2018;Jautzy et al., 2020;Meinicke et al., 2020;Peral et al., 2018) with updated InterCarb anchor values (Bernasconi et al., n.d.) yields an almost identical regression to that calculated in this study (Figure 3).”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
“the 1/T 2 -Δ 47 regression defined by data presented here is nearly identical (0.2°C offset at 25°C and 100°C) to the regression defined by a suite of recent calibration studies”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.2. Comparison Across Calibration Studies Using Carbonate-based Standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Breitenbach et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Jautzy et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Meinicke et al., 2020
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural samples display a weaker correlation coefficient (r 2 = 0.96 vs. 0.99) and larger error of the estimate”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We observe no statistically significant Δ 47 offset between passively and actively degassed samples (p slope = 0.19, p intercept = 0.79) or with the addition of carbonic anhydrase (p slope = 0.79, p intercept = 0.32; Figure S1).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kelson et al., 2017
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A single sample (Aqua Borra) with minor goethite (15%) has individual Δ 47 analyses both much higher and lower than expected but has a mean Δ 47 value that closely agrees with the regression presented here.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We see no statistically significant offset between sample types, although the comparison of calcite and dolomite remains inconclusive.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“there is no significant difference between samples precipitated at low (<7) versus high (>7) pH (p slope = 0.4, p intercept = 0.99) or intensive versus moderate precipitation rate (p slope = 0.05, p intercept = 0.11; Figure S2).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kele et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites Kelson et al., 2017
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third-order polynomial regression through our data falls within the 95% CL of our linear fit over the entire temperature range (Figure 3a) and does not improve the goodness of fit (r 2 = 0.97 for both)”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.3. Non-Linearity of 1/T 2 -Δ 47 Relationship for High-Temperature Precipitates
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the composite calibration regression shown in Equation 1 differs from the study by Petersen et al. (2019) by 3°C near 25°C and by 7°C near 100°C (Figure 1a).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.2. Comparison Across Calibration Studies Using Carbonate-based Standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al. (2019)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because Δ 47 reflects an internal state of isotope distribution within the carbonate mineral phase, it can be used to calculate mineral formation temperature ( Δ 47 T ) as well as the δ 18 O of the precipitating fluid.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ghosh et al., 2006
- Not checked yetcites Schauble et al., 2006
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IUPAC parameters were used to correct raw data”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The low number of rapid precipitates (particularly at low temperatures) makes the above claim inconclusive”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“calibrations given by Jautzy et al. (2020) and Petersen et al. (2019) differed by 5°C near 25°C and 20°C near 100°C”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.2. Comparison Across Calibration Studies Using Carbonate-based Standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jautzy et al. (2020)
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al. (2019)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No pressure baseline correction was applied.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 2.3. Data Processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, 0.81% of cycles and 0.42% of analyses were removed.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 2.3. Data Processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“replicates measurements several times”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.2. Comparison Across Calibration Studies Using Carbonate-based Standardization
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“By reprocessing past calibration data with a consistent data reduction scheme and IUPAC parameter set (Brand et al., 2010;Daëron et al., 2016;Schauer et al., 2016), Petersen et al. (2019) reduced but did not eliminate differences between calibrations.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al., 2019
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“analytical uncertainty and uncertainty associated with creation of the reference frame was propagated throughout.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“sample to standard ratio was 1:1”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IAEA-C1 was treated as an unknown and used as an internal consistency check (n = 16, mean = 0.292‰, 1SE = 0.098‰).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 2.3. Data Processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“likely due to the greater variability of fluid temperature in natural settings.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but small sample numbers and limited temperature range prohibit formal analysis.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“measurement of each sample was replicated at least six times (mean = 9)”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The near-perfect agreement of these calibrations (∼0.2°C offsets near 25°C and 100°C) despite differences in sample material and measurement method points to the strength of carbonate-based standardization and the potential of a unified clumped isotope calibration.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.2. Comparison Across Calibration Studies Using Carbonate-based Standardization
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“At high temperatures, theory predicts a non-linear 1/T 2 -Δ 47 relationship (e.g., Guo et al., 2009;Hill et al., 2014)”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 3.3. Non-Linearity of 1/T 2 -Δ 47 Relationship for High-Temperature Precipitates
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Guo et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Hill et al., 2014
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The calibration of Anderson et al. (2021) is based on a reanalysis of original materials with tightly controlled precipitation temperatures, standardized using I-CDES best practices, and spanning a temperature range of 0.5-1,100°C with n = 91 samples (>1,400 replicates) from 5 laboratories.”
From Frontiers of Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometry (2023) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These two calibrations are offset from each other by 3°C near 25°C and 7°C near 100°C and show a similar temperature dependence as the 47 theoretical equilibrium calculations of Schauble et al. (2006) and Hill et al. (2014) (difference of ∼2°C at Earth surface temperatures).”
From Frontiers of Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometry (2023) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Second, to maintain consistency with the calcite calibration measured using identical analytical conditions (Anderson etal.,2021), Merck was only analyzed once per run of 50 replicates, leading to relatively high uncertainty compared to other carbonate anchors.”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In addition, a reanalysis of samples from five previous calibrations by Anderson et al. (2021) using carbonate standardization revealed no significant differences in temperature dependence of Δ47 between the different sample sets.”
From InterCarb: A Community Effort to Improve Interlaboratory Standardization of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer Using Carbonate Standards (2021) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We emphasize that the improvements in interlaboratory comparability that can be achieved with carbonate standardization, coupled with the reductions in the uncertainties of the temperature calibrations (e.g., Anderson et al., 2021), is decreasing the uncertainties in temperature reconstructions to levels comparable or better than other temperature proxies.”
From InterCarb: A Community Effort to Improve Interlaboratory Standardization of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer Using Carbonate Standards (2021) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Authigenic lacustrine carbonate (Anderson et al. 2021) and tufa/travertine (Kele et al. 2015) appear to follow recent synthetic T-47 calibrations, but such materials (e.g., Huntington et al. 2010, Kato et al. 2019, Li et al. 2021) as well as biogenic or biologically mediated freshwater carbonates (e.g., Huntington et al. 2015, Petryshyn et al. 2015, Wang et al. 2021) may exhibit seasonal, kinetic,”
From Frontiers of Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometry (2023) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This ∆ 47 (I-CDES) was used to calculate the temperature of (re)crystallisation for the carbonates by applying a recent multi-lab calibration [83].”
From Clumped Isotope Reordering and Kinetic Differences in Co-Hosted Calcite and Dolomite Minerals throughout Burial Diagenesis and Exhumation (2023) · cites this paper as [83]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A third-order polynomial regression through the data from this study, on the other hand, diverges from the third-order fit of Anderson etal.(2021); two of the four polynomial fit coefficients fall outside the 1 SD threshold (Figure1, TableS4).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Mass spectrometry methods were nearly identical to those reported in Anderson etal.(2021; excepting samples Rodolo-HT, Rodolo-HT-quench, and Sansa-HT).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The linear dolomite regression from this study has a slightly lower intercept and steeper slope than Anderson etal.(2021), with a calculated temperature of ∼2°C greater than calcite at earth-surface temperatures fading to parity at ∼250°C and with calculated dolomite temperatures lower than calcite for dolomites formed >250°C (Figure2).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“When all samples are considered, the linear dolomite Δ 47 -1/T 2 regression of data presented here (Figure 1, Table3) is statistically indistinguishable from the calibration equation of Anderson etal.(2021) using ANCOVA at the p >0.05 level with a 2 SD external Δ 47 uncertainty (44ppm) and is within 1 SD error of the regression for intercept, but narrowly misses this threshold for”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Linear regressions through these data agree with Anderson etal.(2021) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and 1 SD error of the estimate; third-order regressions do not agree within 1 SD error of the estimate (see Table3 and TableS4).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ANCOVA suggests a similar relationship between well- and poorly ordered dolomites in this data set, but suggests that poorly ordered samples define regression that is statistically similar to Anderson etal.(2021); well-ordered samples reject similarity with Anderson etal.(2021).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Four heated dolomite samples reported in this study (three formed at ETH at 1,100°C and measured at ETH; one formed at IPG Paris at 1,200°C and measured at MIT) have Δ 47 values within 10ppm of those predicted for calcites with the Anderson etal.(2021) calibration equation (Figure4).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Samples with magnesium concentrations closer to stoichiometric dolomite show a broad range of offsets from Anderson etal.(2021).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ANCOVA shows that the calibration regression for all dolomite samples within the I-CDES reference frame is statistically similar to that of Anderson etal.(2021).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The two samples with the lowest magnesium concentration (100-A3 and Leeds 20) show very small residuals from the Anderson etal.(2021) calibration (Figure S6 in Supporting InformationS1).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The two well-ordered samples with δ 47 values inside the reference frame (Figure6) and precipitated from an amorphous gel phase (see section below) show close agreement with the calibration of Anderson etal.(2021), possibly indicating that dolomite ordering is not significant.”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For the third order regression, three out of four regression coefficients show worse agreement with Anderson etal.(2021) when the variable AFF is applied.”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is apparent that 'poorly ordered' samples are close to or slightly below the expected values from the calibration of Anderson etal.(2021), whereas 'well-ordered' samples are above (Figure6a), potentially indicative of some true effect.”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These observations have conflicting interpretations; the better agreement of poorly ordered dolomites with the calcite-based calibration of Anderson etal.(2021) suggests a relationship between ordering ratio and Δ 47 , but the lack of a consistent trend in these data weakens this interpretation.”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Regression of samples precipitated from amorphous gels and natural precipitates compared to that of direct precipitates and dolomitized powders. The former agrees more closely with Anderson etal.(2021).”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We find that apatites measured here define a calibration equation that is statistically indistinguishable from Anderson et al. (2021)”
From Re-Assessing the Need for Apatite- and Dolomite-Specific Calibrations of the Carbonate Clumped Isotope Thermometer (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. (2021)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Two samples have fewer than the stated minimum of six measurements
MinorThe methods say every sample was measured at least six times, but Table 2 lists four measurements for each of two Lake Fryxell samples.
“measurement of each sample was replicated at least six times (mean = 9)”
“LF2012-9_7-A This study Calcite Natural 2.5 4 2.6 -27.2 0.663 0.023 0.045 LF2012-D1-A This study Calcite Natural 2.5 4 3.4 -27.1 0.658 0.023 0.044”
Citations
Cites
Unified equations for the slope, intercept, and standard errors of the best straight line
York, D., Evensen, N. M., López‐Martínez, M., & Basabe, J. D. D. (2004) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1632486 · Cited by 1,253
13C–18O bonds in carbonate minerals: a new kind of paleothermometer
Ghosh, P., Adkins, J., Affek, H., Balta, B., Guo, W., Schauble, E. A., Schrag, D., & Eiler, J. M. (2006) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.014 · Cited by 914
Defining an absolute reference frame for ‘clumped’ isotope studies of CO2
Dennis, K. J., Affek, H. P., Passey, B. H., Schrag, D. P., & Eiler, J. M. (2011) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2011.09.025 · Cited by 627
The Magnitude and Duration of Late Ordovician–Early Silurian Glaciation
Finnegan, S., Bergmann, K., Eiler, J. M., Jones, D. S. J., Fike, D. A., Eisenman, I., Hughes, N. C., Tripati, A., & Fischer, W. W. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1200803 · Cited by 581
Self-citationSchauble, E. A., Ghosh, P., & Eiler, J. M. (2006) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2006.02.011 · Cited by 483 · cited 2×
“Carbonate clumped isotope thermometry is a powerful geochemical tool that can determine the formation temperature of a carbonate mineral based on the temperature-dependent propensity for (13)C-(18)O bond formation in the carbonate crystal lattice (Schauble et al., 2006).”
BackgroundHuntington, K. W., Eiler, J. M., Affek, H. P., Guo, W., Bonifacie, M., Yeung, L. Y., Thiagarajan, N., Passey, B., Tripati, A., Daëron, M., et al. (2009) · Journal of Mass Spectrometry · doi:10.1002/jms.1614 · Cited by 436
Self-citationBrand, W. A., Assonov, S. S., & Coplen, T. B. (2010) · Pure and Applied Chemistry · doi:10.1351/pac-rep-09-01-05 · Cited by 385
Phosphoric acid fractionation factors for calcite and aragonite between 25 and 75 °C: Revisited
Kim, S.-T., Mucci, A., & Taylor, B. E. (2007) · Chemical Geology · doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2007.08.005 · Cited by 374
Coplen, T. B. (2007) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2007.05.028 · Cited by 347
Absolute isotopic abundance ratios and the accuracy of Δ47 measurements
Daëron, M., Blamart, D., Peral, M., & Affek, H. P. (2016) · Chemical Geology · doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.08.014 · Cited by 310 · cited 1×
“By reprocessing past calibration data with a consistent data reduction scheme and IUPAC parameter set (Brand et al., 2010; Daëron et al., 2016; Schauer et al., 2016), Petersen et al.”
MethodSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–319 of 319
McCaffrey, O. F., Winkelstern, I. Z., Kneeshaw, T. A., et al. (2026) · Geosphere · doi:10.1130/ges02933.1
Demény, A., Rinyu, L., Dublyansky, Y. V., & Bajnóczi, B. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-92824-w
Comment on egusphere-2023-2581
Clark, A. J., Torres-Romero, I., Jaggi, M., et al. (2024) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-2581-rc2
Nehme, C., Todisco, D., Breitenbach, S., Couchoud, I., Marchegiano, M., Peral, M., Vonhof, H., Hellstrom, J., Tjallingi, R., Claeys, P., et al. (2023) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4172978 · Cited by 13
Washburn, A. M., Sylvester, P., & Snell, K. E. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9748431/v1
Andriyanto, A., Solikhah, S., Suryani, D., et al. (2025) · JURNAL KESEHATAN LINGKUNGAN · doi:10.20473/jkl.v17i2.2025.187-200
Sharma, N. (2024) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-894-ac1
McCormick, C. A., Jones, B., Olsen, E. K., & Ingalls, M. (2026) · Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · doi:10.1029/2026gc013142
D4Xgui: a tool for baseline correction and standardization of carbonate clumped isotope raw dataPreprint
Bernecker, M., Daëron, M., Staudigel, P. T., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5637360
Self-citationComment on egusphere-2022-1144
Letulle, T., Gaspard, D., ron, M. D., et al. (2022) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2022-1144-rc2
O'Hora, H. E., Petersen, S. V., Vellekoop, J., et al. (2022) · Climate of the past · doi:10.5194/cp-2021-104-rc2
Authors' reply to Clara Bolton (RC1)
Vleeschouwer, D. D. (2022) · Climate of the past · doi:10.5194/cp-2021-151-ac3
Supplemental Material: A tropically hot mid-Cretaceous North American Western Interior Seaway
Jones, M. M., & al., E. (2022) · doi:10.1130/geol.s.19633128
Clark, A. J. (2024) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-2581-ac1
Letulle, T. (2023) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2022-1144-ac3
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, N. T., Kelson, J. R., Kele, S., Daëron, M., Bonifacie, M., Horita, J., Mackey, T. J., John, C. M., Kluge, T., Petschnig, P., Jost, A. B., Huntington, K. W., Bernasconi, S. M., & Bergmann, K. D.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research (HU)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Texas Tech University (US)
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Anderson, N. T.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e2020GL092069
- ISSN
- 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8007
- OpenAlex
- W3119280383
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 18
- FWCI
- 17.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection
- Funders
- David and Lucile Packard Foundation
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC19K0464)
- Nuclear Safety and Security Commission
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geological and Geochemical Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
- Keywords
- clumped isotope thermometry, carbonate clumped isotopes, thermometer calibration, calcite, dolomite, regression equations
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
