Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTelford, Richard J.eng
dc.contributor.authorHeegaard, Einareng
dc.contributor.authorBirks, Harry John Betteleyeng
dc.date.accessioned2004-07-30T09:54:49Z
dc.date.accessioned2004-08-03T12:57:51Z
dc.date.accessioned2004-08-26T11:58:44Z
dc.date.available2004-07-30T09:54:49Z
dc.date.available2004-08-03T12:57:51Z
dc.date.available2004-08-26T11:58:44Z
dc.date.issued2004eng
dc.identifier.citationThe Holocene 2004 14(2): 296–298en
dc.identifier.issn0959-6836eng
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1956/414
dc.description.abstractIntercept-based methods of generating a point estimate of a calibrated radiocarbon date are very popular, but exhibit undesirable behaviour. They are highly sensitive to the mean of the radiocarbon date and to adjustments of the calibration curve. Other methods give more stable results. The weighted average of the probability distribution function is recommended as the best central-point estimate, but more consideration should be given to using the full probability distribution rather than a point estimate in developing agedepth models.en
dc.format.extent16780 byteseng
dc.format.extent134572 byteseng
dc.format.extent166 byteseng
dc.format.mimetypetext/plaineng
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfeng
dc.format.mimetypetext/plaineng
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherArnold Publisherseng
dc.subjectRadiocarbon datingeng
dc.subjectCalibrationeng
dc.subjectIntercepteng
dc.subjectWeighted averageeng
dc.subjectHoloceneeng
dc.subjectMethodologyeng
dc.titleThe intercept is a poor estimate of a calibrated radiocarbon ageeng
dc.typeJournal articleeng
dc.typePeer reviewedeng
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2004 Arnold
bora.peerreviewedPeer reviewedeng
bibo.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0959683604hl707faeng
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0959683604hl707fa


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record