Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Chronologies Working Group"
(→14C recomendations -- SimonGoring (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2016 (PDT): Fix PAGES link) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There are more recomendations in Grimm et al., coming out of the 2014 Belfast workshop: | There are more recomendations in Grimm et al., coming out of the 2014 Belfast workshop: | ||
| − | http://www. | + | http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/download/docs/calendar/2014/Age%20Models,%20Chronologies,%20and%20Databases%20Complete%20Report.pdf |
This addresses the issues with Age Model version reporting. For example: | This addresses the issues with Age Model version reporting. For example: | ||
Latest revision as of 19:24, 23 August 2017
14C recomendations -- SimonGoring (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2016 (PDT)
There are more recomendations in Grimm et al., coming out of the 2014 Belfast workshop:
This addresses the issues with Age Model version reporting. For example:
> The program versions, metadata, and ideally scripts should be stored to enable reproduction of chronologies
> It is recommended that producers of age modeling software provide all data necessary for reproducing chronologies in easily storable scripts or “age model definition” files.
> Instantaneous sedimentation events (slumps, thick tephras), hiatuses, and sharp changes in sedimentation rate create difficulties for classical single-solution age models, and investigators have often created ad hoc chronologies for these situations. Chronologies from these age models are particularly challenging to reproduce. It is recommended that developers of age modeling software formally incorporate these situations into their modeling framework. Some programs already do.
Re: 14C recomendations -- JEG (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2017 (PDT)
- These are all excellent suggestions. Can we invite the authors/users of such softwares to give some details? E.g. what are the parameters necessary to reproduce a Bacon age model?
