Analyzing Radiocarbon Reservoir Offsets Through Stable Nitrogen Isotopes and Bayesian Modeling: A Case Study Using Paired Human and Faunal Remains from the Cis-Baikal Region, Siberia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary offsets in radiocarbon dates are becoming increasingly interesting to researchers, not only because of their impact on the reliability of chronologies but also because of the possibilities for extracting further dietary information from the 14C data itself. This is the case with the cemeteries of the Cis-Baikal region being studied as part of the international Baikal-Hokkaido Archaeology Project set up to examine hunter-gatherer cultural dynamics in eastern Asia. Fortunately, to control for a freshwater reservoir offset, we were able to obtain a number of paired terrestrial herbivore and human material for 14C dating. This article tests the correspondence between stable isotope evidence and the offsets seen in 14C values and the implications for the analysis of the 14C measurements as “chronometric dates.” This is an unusually well-documented example of freshwater reservoir offsets, providing an ideal case study to test different approaches to analyzing such offset information. Here, a purely Bayesian approach is compared with the more frequently applied linear regression analysis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".