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
20 Not checked yet · 19 Own method · 13 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given
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
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None 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
plaincorrelationaln = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plainn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plainn = 41- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None 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
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
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
“Regressions through this study (cubic and linear), previous data, and the composite dataset are nearly identical.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The absence of systematic offset in the T-Δ 47 relationship corresponding to any known sample characteristic”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
“When measured in a consistent analytical setting with carbonate-based standardization, no systematic offset is observed between samples precipitated across a broad spectrum of conditions that were previously determined to have disparate Δ 47 values.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
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
“the consistency of the T-Δ 47 relationship across a broad range of materials and temperatures (e.g., from Antarctic lacustrine microbially-mediated carbonates to laboratory-grown carbonates heated to 1,100°C)”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Slow-growing calcites respectively from Devils Hole, NV, USA, and Laghetto Basso, Italy, measured on an IsoPrime100 at LCSE (see supporting information Text S3) fall directly on the plotted regression lines.”
§ 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Δ 0.0391 0.0004 0.154 0.004 ( 0.97) I CDES C r T (1)”
§ 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 observe no evidence that a non-linear fit better describes high-temperature data.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among sample types measured here, we find no evidence that the particular character of sample material (e.g., mineralogy, the addition of carbonic anhydrase, pH, precipitation rate, biological mediation) influences the Δ 47 calibration”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schauble et al., 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“recent calibration studies have converged on statistically similar slopes for the T-Δ 47 regression line when data is reduced consistently (Petersen et al., 2019).”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“uses a low unknown: anchor ratio to firmly tie unknown measurements to the I-CDES.”
§ 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Temperature precision was ±0.5°C.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 2.1.2. Laboratory Precipitates
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“does not contain marine carbonates, which are of particular interest to the clumped isotope community.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“this calibration has an unequal distribution of samples in 1/T 2 space”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“With only three stoichiometric dolomite samples, no stoichiometric dolomite samples below 100°C, and no calcite samples between 95°C and 1,100°C measured for this study, we cannot rigorously compare calcite and dolomite regressions”
§ 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
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“current discrepancies between empirical calibration equations still lead to Δ 47 T differences of ∼10°C for carbonates near Earth surface temperatures and tens of °C for higher temperature samples (Figure 1; Jautzy et al., 2020;Petersen et al., 2019).”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jautzy et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al., 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 clumped isotope calibration reported here covers the broadest range of temperatures”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
“Equation 1 spans the broadest range of temperatures measured in a consistent analytical setting”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
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 long-term repeatability (1SD) of Δ 47 for all analyses (after data processing described above) is 0.036‰.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 2.3. Data Processing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therefore, we cannot assert that dolomite and calcite samples can be described using a single regression equation, as previously suggested by Bonifacie et al. (2017) and Petersen et al. (2019)”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · hedged
“although calcite and dolomite agreement remain 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
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonifacie et al. (2017)
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al. (2019)
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · hedged
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
“Together, these studies support that varying preparation and measurement procedures between laboratories produce consistent results if data are standardized using common carbonate reference materials.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the InterCarb study found that Δ 47 values of measured carbonate standards are statistically indistinguishable irrespective of procedural differences between laboratories such as sample gas purification, mass spectrometer type, or sample acidification procedure.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bernasconi et al., n.d.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“is anchored at the coldest temperatures by unusual carbonates”
§ 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“includes diverse carbonates”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“indicates that a single T-Δ 47 calibration can adequately describe a wide variety of sample types.”
§ 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Jautzy et al. (2020) created a new calibration spanning 5°C-726°C using carbonate-based standardization and found the regression equation defined by the data was statistically indistinguishable from a series of previous calibration efforts using carbonate-based standardization (Bernasconi et al., 2018;Breitenbach et al., 2018;Daëron et al., 2019;Meinicke et al., 2020;Peral et al., 2018;Piasecki et”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jautzy et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Bernasconi et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Breitenbach et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Agreement across a wide range of temperature and sample types demonstrates a unified, broadly applicable clumped isotope thermometer calibration.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“this data set and the community-developed InterCarb anchor values (Bernasconi et al., n.d.) narrow the discrepancy between calibrations using carbonate anchor values and heated/equilibrated gases, most notably Petersen et al. (2019).”
§ 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 Bernasconi et al., n.d.
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al. (2019)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“suggests that discrepancies between these exact samples from previous calibration efforts are not a function of the character of measured sample material (Bonifacie et al., 2017;Kele et al., 2015;Kelson et al., 2017;Kluge et al., 2015;Wacker et al., 2014).”
§ 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 Bonifacie et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Kele et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites Kelson et al., 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Uncertainty from calibrations on this order compounds with analytical uncertainty and hampers interpretation of clumped isotope data.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Equation 1 spans the broadest range of temperatures measured in a consistent analytical setting and, when corrected with carbonate anchor values from the InterCarb exercise (Bernasconi et al., n.d.) or heated/equilibrated gases, may be applied across a wide range of natural and laboratory-grown carbonate material.”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > 4. Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bernasconi et al., n.d.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plainn = 41- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“IUPAC parameters were used to correct raw data”
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Unified Clumped Isotope Thermometer Calibration (0.5-1,100°C) Using Carbonate-Based Standardization > Abstract
“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 > 3.1. Comparison of T-Δ 47 Relationship Across Sample Types
“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 580
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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bernasconi, S. M., Daëron, M., Bergmann, K. D., Bonifacie, M., Meckler, A. N., Affek, H. P., Anderson, N., Bajnai, D., Barkan, E., Beverly, E., et al. (2021) · Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · doi:10.1029/2020gc009588 · Cited by 340
Self-citationFull Propagation of Analytical Uncertainties in Δ 47 Measurements
(2021) · doi:10.1029/2020gc009592 · Cited by 131
Self-citationCenozoic evolution of deep ocean temperature from clumped isotope thermometry
Meckler, A. N., Sexton, P. F., Piasecki, A. M., Leutert, T. J., Marquardt, J., Ziegler, M., Agterhuis, T., Lourens, L. J., Rae, J. W. B., Barnet, J., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abk0604 · Cited by 120
Self-citationCalibration of the dual clumped isotope thermometer for carbonates
Fiebig, J., Daëron, M., Bernecker, M., Guo, W., Schneider, G., Boch, R., Bernasconi, S. M., Jautzy, J., & Dietzel, M. (2021) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2021.07.012 · Cited by 110
Self-citationClumped isotopes in modern marine bivalves
Huyghe, D., Daëron, M., de RAFÉLIS, M., Blamart, D., Sébilo, M., Paulet, Y., & Lartaud, F. (2021) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2021.09.019 · Cited by 73
Self-citation
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
