@James Fellows Yates has joined the channel
@Maria Lopopolo has joined the channel
Hey all, you've so far expressed interested in a possible C14 date extension to AncientMetagenomeDir
This has potential for another paper, that
@Diana has already started gathering all this inforamtion, but we will need help
Would you guys still be interested?
The main thing is I'm on leave and I'm basically at capacity with projects atm...
I would be interested, as I’ve dealt with the issue already to some degree in my recent preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.18.549544v1
the problem is that radiocarbon dates are sometimes also reported in other papers. In the preprint we also report raw data for samples where previously only calibrated or modelled dates were reported.
Yup, if you see the draft spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ArZdzWWRhTHRJXddNrrqyi2iumKJDqaQwVjQd0e8Au0/edit?usp=sharing
You can see we have the reference_citation_depth
And there are also samples where the (historical) dating is questionable. I guess that would go under “notes and comments”
Would definitely like to carry on with this. The data I have gathered should be reviewed before getting forward, I think. If there’s something to improve in the way it’s gathered it should be figured out sooner better than latter.
I will be quite busy before December, but then I should have a bit more time and could check the data
Awesome 😄 I'm back end of January
We will likely go through the same github procedure as before I suspect
IIRC I got most of the way there but hit an unresolved bug with AMDirT
I’d be happy to have session with anyone to go through the table which we have started, if there is anything unclear, though James had nicely annotated each column
It looks great on the first glance, amazing job! I know now how tricky it is to collect all that data.
Yes, @Diana has done a great job so far
And very much the same - can’t do much this semester. Should be free-er in February.
I would maybe add more data, e.g. C/N isotope data, as some labs provide it along with rc dates, and it can be used to check for reservoir effects
but this will be available only for the minority of the samples
Yeah I explored that but it was not included so many times it wasn't worth the effort recording it
That's why the resevoir effect columns are so few
It was taking @Diana a long time to get the information we already have there for each study 😕
reservoir effect reporting is very much unclear. Often “reservoir effect” is mentioned, but it’s unclear if it’s calculated in the reported date. If it’s calculated very often there are no other details. Therefore we had decided to have those three columns with yes or no questions basically, as otherwise due to ambiguity we’d have to say no it’s not reported at all. Do you think the isotope data would help with that or make it more complex? or somewhere in-between?
If, then I would include it independently. E.g., in the preprint we report the isotope data, but don’t use it for calculating reservoir offsets (since we don’t have enough data for proper calculations)
I think the current format is fine, but could be extended
@Florencia Alvarez Gallego has joined the channel