Methods and code for 'classical' age-modelling of radiocarbon sequences.

By M. Blaauw. 2010

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. K. Bennett
2. M. Macias‐Fauria
3. Manfred Mudelsee
4. D. Scholz
5. J. Andrés Christen
6. D. Hoffmann
7. P. Reimer
8. A. Millard

Citations in the corpus

• Trend analysis of climate time series: A review of methods (2019, background): “…and Millard (2004); Drysdale et al. (2004); Blaauw and Christen (2005); Heegaard et al. (2005); Spötl et al. (2006); Haslett and Parnell (2008); Blaauw (2010); Klauenberg et al. (2011); Scholz and Hoffmann (2011); Blaauw and Heegaard (2012); Fohlmeister (2012); Hendy et al. (2012); Hercman and…”
• StalAge – An algorithm designed for construction of speleothem age models (2011, methodology): “For instance, a recent literature review yielded that 65 out of 93 papers using agemodels did not indicatewhether uncertainties for the age model were calculated (Blaauw, 2010).”
• Double the dates and go for Bayes — Impacts of model choice, dating density and quality on chronologies (2018, methodology): “At first sight, the commonly used classical247 age-depth models based on linear interpolation or smooth splines (Bennett,248 2007; Blaauw, 2010) appear to produce more precise chronologies than do the249 Bayesian models, namely Bchron and Bacon (Haslett and Parnell, 2008;250 Blaauw and Christen,…”
• Conventions for Reporting Radiocarbon Determinations (2014, background): “1999), BChron (Haslett and Parnell 2008), BPeat (Blaauw and Christen 2005), CALIB (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), CalPal (Weninger and Jöris 2008), Clam (Blaauw 2010), Fairbanks’ program (Fairbanks et al.”
• Vegetation of Eurasia from the last glacial maximum to present: Key biogeographic patterns (2017, methodology): “For new, uncalibrated chronologies or chronologies that used conventional radiocarbon ages, we used CLAM v. 1.2 (Blaauw, 2010) to calibrate dates and construct new age models.”
• All age–depth models are wrong, but are getting better (2015, methodology): “These dates with true varve ages were then decalibrated using the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al., 2013) provided with the CLAM script for age–depth modelling (Blaauw, 2010).”