{ "model": { "rank": 4481, "code": "thing-q173412", "model_id": "vr.tr.radiocarbon-dating", "name": "radiocarbon dating", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognize radiocarbon dating, assess whether its evidence supports a proposed chronology, and choose justified sampling, calibration, or interpretation actions.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q173412/", "tier": 2, "score": 75, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 75, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q173412", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q173412", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T20:19:38Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 26.8, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a087d2-5bb5-72d2-89ea-78c70546ea51\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: radiocarbon dating\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 004: 10", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 73.4, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a087d2-5bbb-78f1-9417-c5d4e4e2c6bc\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: radiocarbon dating\nRegistry id: vr.tr.radiocarbon-dating\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this en" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q173412", "registryId": "vr.tr.radiocarbon-dating", "name": "radiocarbon dating", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q173412/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.radiocarbon-dating", "name": "radiocarbon dating", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognize radiocarbon dating, assess whether its evidence supports a proposed chronology, and choose justified sampling, calibration, or interpretation actions.", "definition": "Radiocarbon dating is a chronometric method that estimates the time since carbon in a sample ceased exchanging with a reservoir by measuring its carbon-14 content and interpreting radioactive decay with appropriate calibration and reservoir corrections.", "scope_statement": "This model owns radiocarbon dating as a knowledge-producing method under vr.tr.radiocarbon-dating, INF / INF.KNW: the connection between a sampled carbon fraction, its radiocarbon measurement, and a defensible chronological inference.", "in_scope": [ "Method identity, assumptions, applicability, and boundaries with other dating methods", "Sample selection and the relationship between dated carbon and the event of interest", "Pretreatment, measurement conventions, and laboratory quality evidence", "Calibration, carbon reservoirs, and chronological modelling", "Interpretation, reporting, reproducibility, and unresolved uncertainty" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete physical models of carbon isotopes and radioactive decay", "Design and operation of accelerator mass spectrometers and counting instruments", "General archaeological, geological, or historical interpretation beyond the dating evidence", "Complete specimen conservation and collection management", "Laboratories, professional societies, and publications as organizations or information objects" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The chronological evidence depends specifically on carbon-14 measurements, distinguishing this method from other radiometric dating systems.", "The dated entity is an identified carbon-bearing fraction; its relationship to an object's manufacture, use, or deposition requires separate evidence.", "A conventional radiocarbon age and a calibrated calendar estimate are distinct outputs, with calibration requiring an identified reference curve and analysis choices. [Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit](https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/results)", "Carbon reservoir history and contamination can affect chronological interpretation even when the laboratory measurement is precise.", "A radiocarbon concentration measurement becomes dating evidence only through an explicit chronological question and a justified inference." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Target event and dated-carbon relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified target event linked to carbon formation, exchange cessation, or incorporation; relationship supported, conditional, or unknown", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a sample age from being assigned automatically to the surrounding object or deposit." }, { "name": "Material and isolated fraction", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Material identification plus dated fraction, such as wood cellulose, bone collagen, charcoal, or shell carbonate", "why_it_matters": "Determines appropriate preparation and the assumptions connecting the measured carbon to the target event." }, { "name": "Carbon reservoir attribution", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Atmospheric terrestrial, marine, freshwater, mixed, or unresolved; geographic and temporal context recorded", "why_it_matters": "Controls which calibration and reservoir assumptions require evaluation." }, { "name": "Reported radiocarbon result", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Conventional radiocarbon age in 14C years BP or F14C, with uncertainty and reporting convention", "why_it_matters": "Preserves the laboratory evidence used for calibration. [OxCal input documentation](https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcalhelp/hlp_input.html)" }, { "name": "Pretreatment and quality assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed, acceptable under stated criteria, qualified, or rejected; linked preparation and quality records", "why_it_matters": "Makes acceptance depend on material-specific evidence rather than the existence of a numerical result." }, { "name": "Calibration configuration", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Curve name and version, software and version, reservoir parameters, and applicable regional or sample assumptions", "why_it_matters": "Makes calendar estimates reproducible and permits reassessment when inputs change." }, { "name": "Calendar estimate", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Probability distribution and interval set with stated probability coverage and calendar convention", "why_it_matters": "Retains ambiguity that a single rounded date would conceal." }, { "name": "Chronological inference status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Measured only, calibrated, modelled, qualified, excluded from a specified analysis, or superseded", "why_it_matters": "Separates laboratory completion from the strength and current use of the chronological inference." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether a proposed material and carbon fraction can address a stated dating question.", "Compare sampling options by event association, carbon preservation, contamination risk, and expected chronological resolution.", "Check whether laboratory results include the conventions, uncertainty, and quality evidence needed for interpretation.", "Select and document a justified calibration configuration or flag missing reservoir information.", "Recalibrate or compare chronological models while retaining original measurements and previous analyses.", "Recommend additional samples or independent evidence when existing dates cannot distinguish competing chronologies." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "method-identity-and-applicability", "name": "Method identity and applicability", "description": "Define the radiocarbon dating method and establish when its chronological inference is applicable.", "rationale": "The registry name must resolve to a method with explicit assumptions rather than to any carbon analysis or an entire neighbouring discipline.", "layers": [ { "id": "radiocarbon-basis", "name": "Radiocarbon basis", "description": "Identify the measured isotope evidence and the chronological inference it supports.", "findings": [ { "id": "measurement-to-age-inference", "name": "Measurement-to-age inference", "description": "Record how a carbon-14 result is interpreted through assumptions about initial carbon composition and subsequent exchange.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes this procedure radiocarbon dating rather than carbon-source analysis or another radiometric method?", "kind": "definition", "id": "measurement-to-age-inference-q01" }, { "text": "Which assumptions connect this carbon fraction's measured radiocarbon content to elapsed time?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "measurement-to-age-inference-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "application-envelope", "name": "Application envelope", "description": "Evaluate suitability against material, expected age, and required resolution.", "findings": [ { "id": "question-specific-feasibility", "name": "Question-specific feasibility", "description": "Represent dating feasibility as a property of a particular sample, laboratory capability, and chronological question.", "questions": [ { "text": "What sample-specific and laboratory-specific evidence establishes the usable measurement range?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "question-specific-feasibility-q01" }, { "text": "Could the expected calibration resolution distinguish the events or hypotheses of interest?", "kind": "action", "id": "question-specific-feasibility-q02" }, { "text": "Does the expected period require a post-bomb dating treatment or another specialized approach?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "question-specific-feasibility-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "sample-and-event-association", "name": "Sample and event association", "description": "Connect the sampled carbon to the event that the investigation intends to date.", "rationale": "A sound measurement can answer the wrong chronological question when material history and event association are weak.", "layers": [ { "id": "dated-fraction-identity", "name": "Dated fraction identity", "description": "Identify the material, selected component, and possible sources of its carbon.", "findings": [ { "id": "carbon-bearing-component", "name": "Carbon-bearing component", "description": "Distinguish the submitted specimen from the actual fraction selected for dating.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which material and carbon-bearing fraction will be measured?", "kind": "definition", "id": "carbon-bearing-component-q01" }, { "text": "What identification and preservation evidence supports selecting this fraction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "carbon-bearing-component-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "event-linkage", "name": "Event linkage", "description": "Evaluate whether carbon formation or incorporation corresponds to the intended event.", "findings": [ { "id": "sample-event-offset", "name": "Sample-to-event offset", "description": "Record possible offsets caused by growth history, storage, reuse, residual material, or redeposition.", "questions": [ { "text": "What independent contextual evidence links the dated fraction to the target event?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "sample-event-offset-q01" }, { "text": "Could old wood, reuse, intrusion, or redeposition separate the sample's carbon age from that event?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "sample-event-offset-q02" }, { "text": "Would a shorter-lived or more securely associated sample resolve this ambiguity?", "kind": "action", "id": "sample-event-offset-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "preparation-and-measurement-integrity", "name": "Preparation and measurement integrity", "description": "Evaluate whether preparation and measurement produced an interpretable result for the selected carbon fraction.", "rationale": "Contamination control and laboratory quality evidence determine whether calibration is warranted.", "layers": [ { "id": "pretreatment-and-contamination", "name": "Pretreatment and contamination", "description": "Track removal of unwanted carbon and preservation of the intended fraction.", "findings": [ { "id": "fraction-isolation-evidence", "name": "Fraction isolation evidence", "description": "Record preparation procedures, known conservation treatments, recovery evidence, and unresolved contamination pathways.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which pretreatment isolated the intended fraction, and what evidence supports its suitability for this material?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "fraction-isolation-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Which introduced or exchanged carbon sources might remain after treatment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "fraction-isolation-evidence-q02" }, { "text": "What material-specific evidence would justify repeating preparation or rejecting the sample?", "kind": "action", "id": "fraction-isolation-evidence-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "laboratory-result-quality", "name": "Laboratory result quality", "description": "Preserve the measurement convention and evidence supporting analytical reliability.", "findings": [ { "id": "traceable-radiocarbon-result", "name": "Traceable radiocarbon result", "description": "Link the sample and isolated fraction to a laboratory identifier, measurement method, uncertainty, corrections, and quality assessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Was radiocarbon measured by accelerator mass spectrometry or decay counting, and how was the result normalized and reported?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "traceable-radiocarbon-result-q01" }, { "text": "What blanks, standards, replicates, and uncertainty components support the reported result?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-radiocarbon-result-q02" }, { "text": "Is this a finite age estimate, a limit, or a result requiring special interpretation near laboratory background?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "traceable-radiocarbon-result-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "reservoirs-and-calendar-calibration", "name": "Reservoirs and calendar calibration", "description": "Translate radiocarbon measurements into calendar evidence using justified carbon-source and reference-curve assumptions.", "rationale": "A radiocarbon result does not supply a calendar date independently of calibration and reservoir treatment.", "layers": [ { "id": "reservoir-assumptions", "name": "Reservoir assumptions", "description": "Identify the carbon reservoirs represented in a sample and evaluate applicable corrections or mixing models.", "findings": [ { "id": "carbon-source-and-offset", "name": "Carbon source and offset", "description": "Make reservoir attribution, local offset evidence, and mixed-source uncertainty explicit.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which atmospheric, marine, freshwater, or mixed carbon sources contributed to the dated fraction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "carbon-source-and-offset-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports any reservoir correction and its geographic and temporal applicability?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "carbon-source-and-offset-q02" }, { "text": "Does uncertain source mixing prevent a defensible calibration or require comparison of alternative assumptions?", "kind": "action", "id": "carbon-source-and-offset-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "calendar-transformation", "name": "Calendar transformation", "description": "Preserve calibration inputs and the resulting probability distribution.", "findings": [ { "id": "reproducible-calibration", "name": "Reproducible calibration", "description": "Record the reference curve, software settings, and full calendar distribution; calibrated likelihoods can have complex shapes. [OxCal analysis documentation](https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcalhelp/hlp_analysis_inform.html)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which curve version and software configuration were used, and why do they fit this sample?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reproducible-calibration-q01" }, { "text": "Which calendar intervals and probability coverage express the result without concealing separate plausible ranges?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reproducible-calibration-q02" }, { "text": "How would alternative supported curve or reservoir choices change the chronological conclusion?", "kind": "action", "id": "reproducible-calibration-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "chronological-inference-and-reporting", "name": "Chronological inference and reporting", "description": "Assess combined chronological evidence and communicate conclusions with reproducible assumptions and limits.", "rationale": "Agents must distinguish measured evidence, calibration output, and conclusions that depend on additional chronological constraints.", "layers": [ { "id": "combined-chronological-evidence", "name": "Combined chronological evidence", "description": "Evaluate combinations of dates, contextual constraints, and model assumptions.", "findings": [ { "id": "conditional-chronology", "name": "Conditional chronology", "description": "Record the justification for combining measurements or introducing sequence, phase, tree-ring, or age-depth constraints. [OxCal analysis examples](https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcalhelp/hlp_analysis_eg.html)", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence justifies treating measurements as dating the same event or imposing their proposed order?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "conditional-chronology-q01" }, { "text": "Which conclusions depend on priors, outlier treatment, or excluded determinations?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conditional-chronology-q02" }, { "text": "What sensitivity analysis would show whether those conclusions survive plausible alternative assumptions?", "kind": "action", "id": "conditional-chronology-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reporting-and-reassessment", "name": "Reporting and reassessment", "description": "Keep published chronological claims traceable to laboratory evidence and analysis decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "auditable-dating-claim", "name": "Auditable dating claim", "description": "Retain original results, calibration and model configurations, interpretation limits, and reasons for later revision.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can another analyst recover the laboratory result, sample association, calibration inputs, and model assumptions behind the claim?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "auditable-dating-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Does the report distinguish conventional radiocarbon ages, calibrated estimates, and model-dependent event estimates?", "kind": "definition", "id": "auditable-dating-claim-q02" }, { "text": "What new evidence would trigger recalibration, resampling, or withdrawal of the event assignment?", "kind": "action", "id": "auditable-dating-claim-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This sense covers an analytical dating method rather than an autonomous discipline, despite its placement under INF.KNW.", "Reporting conventions are methodological conventions, not a universal regulatory requirement; no sources were consulted for this recall.", "A researcher should verify the applicable calibration curve, reservoir correction, pretreatment and laboratory performance before interpreting a particular determination." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating", "Gas proportional counting dating", "Liquid scintillation counting dating", "Bomb-pulse dating using nuclear-weapons-test radiocarbon" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Laboratory radiocarbon determination identifier", "value_or_pattern": "Laboratory-specific prefix followed by a sample or determination number", "note": "Identifies a reported determination; formats vary by laboratory." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "The journal Radiocarbon's conventional reporting conventions define radiocarbon ages in years BP relative to AD 1950, using the Libby half-life of 5,568 years and isotopic-fractionation normalization." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Dating archaeological materials such as charcoal, seeds, wood and bone collagen", "Constructing chronologies for sediment, peat and environmental change", "Constraining the timing of geological events through associated carbon-bearing material", "Investigating groundwater residence times with geochemical corrections", "Estimating formation dates of recent biological material through bomb-pulse analysis" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Conventional radiocarbon age", "typical_range": "Approximately 0-50,000 for many applications; the usable limit depends on material, contamination and laboratory background", "unit": "radiocarbon years BP, relative to AD 1950" }, { "quantity": "Carbon-14 physical half-life", "typical_range": "Approximately 5,730", "unit": "years" }, { "quantity": "Calibrated calendar age", "typical_range": "Sample-dependent probability intervals; calibration can produce several disjoint intervals", "unit": "cal BP or calendar BCE/CE" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Modern or fossil-carbon contamination can shift an apparent age substantially.", "Marine and freshwater reservoir effects can make material appear older than contemporaneous atmospheric carbon.", "Old wood, reused objects and redeposited material can predate the event being investigated.", "Calibration plateaus and reversals can yield broad or multiple calendar-age intervals despite precise measurements.", "Near the method's dating limit, background subtraction and pretreatment can dominate the result." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Northern and Southern Hemisphere atmospheric samples require appropriate calibration because their radiocarbon histories differ.", "Marine samples require marine calibration and locally appropriate reservoir corrections.", "Freshwater reservoir effects vary with catchment geology and carbon sources, sometimes even within one region." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Radiometric dating", "difference": "Radiocarbon dating is the subset that uses carbon-14; other radiometric methods use different isotope systems." }, { "name": "Dendrochronology", "difference": "Dates wood by matching annual growth-ring patterns; independently dated rings also supply radiocarbon calibration evidence." }, { "name": "Stable carbon isotope analysis", "difference": "Measures stable isotope composition to investigate carbon sources and processes rather than elapsed time from carbon-14 decay." }, { "name": "Archaeological chronology", "difference": "Integrates dating evidence and contextual relationships; radiocarbon dating supplies particular measurements within that broader undertaking." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of radiocarbon dating this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does an existing Vercy world model already cover radiocarbon dating, requiring this registry entry to link to it instead of receiving a separate publication?", "Which authoritative classifications and institutional references place radiocarbon dating as a method or specialty, and which boundaries should this registry adopt?", "Which material-specific pretreatment and quality criteria can be grounded in published protocols without implying universal acceptance thresholds?", "How should post-bomb dating, mixed carbon sources, and measurements near laboratory background be represented within one model while preserving their distinct assumptions?", "Which reporting conventions and versioned calibration references should a completed publication adopt, including treatment of model-dependent uncertainty and unresolved reservoir offsets?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 19, "questions": 37 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a radiocarbon dating, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognize radiocarbon dating, assess whether its evidence supports a proposed chronology, and choose justified sampling, calibration, or interpretation actions.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 75 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a radiocarbon dating, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 75 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one radiocarbon dating from another, and a radiocarbon dating from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a radiocarbon dating sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a radiocarbon dating from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a radiocarbon dating passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a radiocarbon dating between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a radiocarbon dating, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a radiocarbon dating is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a radiocarbon dating says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a radiocarbon dating contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a radiocarbon dating and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What radiocarbon dating studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does radiocarbon dating take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does radiocarbon dating establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where radiocarbon dating is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark radiocarbon dating as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place radiocarbon dating, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a radiocarbon dating came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a radiocarbon dating and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a radiocarbon dating is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a radiocarbon dating, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a radiocarbon dating, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a radiocarbon dating is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }