Exact(1)
Very few studies, backed by sound chronological database, extend to the full duration of even Late Quaternary.
Similar(59)
As discussed in 'General structure of the MySQL database' and 'Chronological metadata' section, a new results table has been designed to accommodate experimental radiocarbon ages and their uncertainties.
The following subsections describe the general, paleomagnetic, and chronological metadata accommodated by the database and the rationale for their inclusion.
It is out of the scope of this paper to review the nuances of age and uncertainty calculations for specific dating methods (Walker (2005); Taylor and Bar-Yosef (2014) provide recent overviews of quaternary dating methods); however, we briefly discuss the chronological metadata included in the database in the 'Chronological metadata' section.
The general metadata related to how the paleomagnetic and chronological data are stored within the database are the UIDs (see 'General structure of the MySQL database' section) and the month and year of upload.
This paper is the second chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database, published earlier in this journal (1,2,4).
This paper is the third chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database that first appeared in this journal in 1984.
This paper presents two types of information from the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB): (a) the sixth chronological plot of analyses of long-term carcinogenesis bioassays, and (b) an index to chemicals in all six plots, including a summary compendium of positivity and potency for each chemical (Appendix 14).
Several databases provide paleomagnetic, rock magnetic, and chronological data; however, none that are currently maintained exclusively catalogue data from sediments over the past 50 ka.
To accommodate such approaches, the database contains detailed information on paleomagnetic and chronological uncertainties and experimental details.
This has led to the expansion of the chronological metadata included in the latest version of the database.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com