Conventions for Reporting Radiocarbon Determinations
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
Current conventions for reporting radiocarbon determinations do not cover the reporting of calibrated dates. This article proposes revised conventions that have been endorsed by many 14 C scientists. For every determination included in a scientific paper, the following should apply: (1) the laboratory measurement should be reported as a conventional radiocarbon age in 14 C yr BP or a fractionation-corrected fraction modern (F 14 C) value; (2) the laboratory code for the determination should be included; and (3) the sample material dated, the pretreatment method applied, and quality control measurements should be reported. In addition, for every calibrated determination or modeled date, the following should be reported: (4) the calibration curve and any reservoir offset used; (5) the software used for calibration, including version number, the options and/or models used, and wherever possible a citation of a published description of the software; and (6) the calibrated date given as a range (or ranges) with an associated probability on a clearly identifiable calendar timescale.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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