Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Negative Pb-210_xs #2

Open
Danapit opened this issue Mar 3, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Negative Pb-210_xs #2

Danapit opened this issue Mar 3, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@Danapit
Copy link

Danapit commented Mar 3, 2023

Hello Rosalie,
First of all, thank you very much for this great tool!
I wonder what you'd recommend to do when there are negative values of excess 210Pb in the profile. Because excess 210Pb is a calculated value from two measurements, which both have some uncertainty connected to them, it's only natural when the values close to the base of the core, where no or little excess is present, tend to be distributed on both sides of 0. I think ignoring these values introduces a bias.
Could a model with a fixed offset be used to avoid negatives, when the linearized fit (using log values) is used?
Or a non-linear fit on original values, which could directly deal with negative?
Cheers!
Dana

@rosalieb rosalieb self-assigned this Mar 3, 2023
@rosalieb rosalieb added the question Further information is requested label Mar 3, 2023
@rosalieb
Copy link
Owner

rosalieb commented Mar 3, 2023

Hi Dana,
My first thought is that negative Pbex in the profile should be ignored, but maybe I have not given this enough thoughts.
Could you please share an illustration of the issue and an illustration of the offset solution? I think I understand what you mean, but I prefer to be sure.
Hand drawn diagram is fine if you cannot share the original data!

@Danapit
Copy link
Author

Danapit commented Mar 3, 2023

Thank you, I'll come up with an example, maybe the best will be a synthetic profile to illustrate the issue. It might take me a couple of days, sorry!

@rosalieb
Copy link
Owner

rosalieb commented Mar 3, 2023

Thanks a lot, and no rush!

@Danapit
Copy link
Author

Danapit commented Mar 8, 2023

Hey!
I took a while and still kind of draft status... I was thinking about this problem and I don't know if this really is a problem, and whether negative values could actually contribute to a bias (towards "flatter" profiles -> high calculated sedimentation rates, I would expect). I don't have such a solid background in maths, so I tried to sum it up in this repo and played around with an artificially generated profiles: https://github.com/Danapit/210Pb_dating_CFCS_SERAC_test
I didn't get to the last part which should be some kind of statistical testing, which I have to think about first - long time ago I did this training. But from the results on the first glance it appears to me it doesn't make too much difference if there are negative values present in the profile. Maybe you can have a look and tell me what you think. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants