Dating young stalagmite using 210Pb excess method: example from Han-sur-Lesse cave, Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speleothem cave deposits (particularly stalagmites) represent often high–resolution continental records for reconstruction of paleoclimate and/or paleoenvironmental conditions through their trace elements concentrations (e.g., Mg, Sr and Ba) and stable isotopes compositions 18O and 13C (Fairchild, et al., 2000, 2001; McDermott, 2004). The advantage of using very young speleothems (1-120 yrs timescale) is the possibility to validate such reconstructions when compared with historical and instrumental records (e.g., meteorological parameters). U-series radiochronology remains the most suitable method to obtain reliable absolute ages of speleothems even for relatively young deposits, avoiding uncertainties related to multiple sources of CO2. In cases of pristine and clean speleothems with relatively high U-contents, precise U/Th ages can be obtained even for very recent stalagmite (e.g., Shen et al, 2013). However, this is rarely the case because speleothems often contain low U-contents (ppb levels) and traces of detrital contaminants, which require often complicated age corrections. Such corrections result in relatively high uncertainties on the final age calculation. We present here the results of 210Pb measurements carried out on high growth rate and laminated stalagmite from Han-sur Lesse cave, southern Belgium. The 210Pb results show a clear well defined exponential with depth decreasing allowing to calculate an age-depth model. These 210Pb ages were confronted to ages of the stalagmite obtained by counting laminae and considered as true ages. The results show a good agreement between the two ages within the analytical errors and open a new potential for dating recent not laminated speleothems using 210Pb excess method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".