Bomb dating, age validation and quality control of age determinations of monodontids and other marine mammals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for confirming the accuracy of age determination methods are reasonably well established in fishes, but the millions of routine age determinations which take place every year require their own quality control protocols. In contrast, methods for ensuring accuracy in age determination of monodontids and other marine mammals are still being developed. Here we review the basis and application of bomb radiocarbon to marine mammal age validation, highlighting its value for providing unambiguous estimates of age for belugas and other long-lived animals which form growth bands. Bomb radiocarbon is particularly useful for marine mammals, given that the age of an individual animal can be determined to within ±1-3 years, as long as it was alive during the 1960s. However, ongoing age determinations require careful monitoring to ensure that age interpretations remain consistent across ages and through time. Quality control protocols using reference collections of ageing material, in conjunction with age bias plots and measures of precision, are capable of detecting virtually all of the systematic ageing errors that often occur once age determinations of an animal become routine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it