@article{ChristImmenhauserAmouretal.2012,
  author    = {Christ, Nicolas and Immenhauser, Adrian and Amour, Frederic and Mutti, Maria and Preston, Rosalind and Whitaker, Fiona F. and Peterh{\"a}nsel, Arndt and Egenhoff, Sven O. and Dunn, Paul A. and Agar, Susan M.},
  title     = {Triassic Latemar cycle tops - Subaerial exposure of platform carbonates under tropical arid climate},
  series = {Sedimentary geology : international journal of applied and regional sedimentology},
  volume    = {265},
  journal   = {Sedimentary geology : international journal of applied and regional sedimentology},
  number    = {28},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0037-0738},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.sedgeo.2012.02.008},
  pages     = {1 -- 29},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {The Triassic Latemar platform in the Dolomites, Italy, is the site of several ongoing controversies. Perhaps the most interesting debate focuses on apparent cyclic deposition within the Latemar platform, whose nature and duration are still open to debate. Further disagreement concerns the lack of meteoric diagenesis-related isotope shifts at cycle tops that bear circumstantial petrographic evidence for subaerial emergence. Here, an evaluation of the nature of Latemar cycle tops is presented combining evidence from previous work and new field, petrographic and geochemical data. Cycle tops are ranked according to increasing exposure duration and spatial extent: type I surfaces lacking unequivocal evidence of prolonged supratidal conditions; type II dolomite caps formed in warm, evaporitic, intertidal lagoonal waters followed by exposure of perhaps intermediate duration; type III clastic-rich, red calcareous horizons with some showing platform-wide extent, representing prolonged supratidal conditions, and type IV discontinuities in tepee belts, genetically related to type II and III surfaces, but likely representing shorter-lived exposure stages. Petrographic and geochemical criteria indicate that most diagenesis occurred in the shallow marine and burial domain whilst an extensive meteoric overprint of cycle tops is lacking. This is underlined by the scarcity of meteoric diagenetic fabrics such as gravitational cements that, where present, are here interpreted as marine-vadose in origin. The scarcity of carbon and oxygen isotope signatures commonly assigned to subaerial exposure stages is best explained in the context of mid-Triassic climate. The low latitude, tropical but arid setting of the Latemar, situated in the western extension of the Tethys ocean, its isolation from nearby continental areas and overall short-term emergence episodes are in agreement with a limited degree of meteoric alteration of most cycle tops. High amounts of aeolian clastic material beneath some cycle tops, along with high Fe and Mn elemental abundances argue for intermittent subaerial conditions. This study proposes an enhancement of the classical Allan and Matthews (1982) isotope model for subaerial exposure under strongly arid climates. As the subaerial exposure nature of Latemar cycle tops, and therefore eustasy as the cause for cyclicity, have been previously challenged due to the lack of meteoric-induced isotopic signatures, the outcome of this study is of significance for the ongoing Latemar stratigraphic controversy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AartsAndersonAndersonetal.2015,
  author    = {Aarts, Alexander A. and Anderson, Joanna E. and Anderson, Christopher J. and Attridge, Peter R. and Attwood, Angela and Axt, Jordan and Babel, Molly and Bahnik, Stepan and Baranski, Erica and Barnett-Cowan, Michael and Bartmess, Elizabeth and Beer, Jennifer and Bell, Raoul and Bentley, Heather and Beyan, Leah and Binion, Grace and Borsboom, Denny and Bosch, Annick and Bosco, Frank A. and Bowman, Sara D. and Brandt, Mark J. and Braswell, Erin and Brohmer, Hilmar and Brown, Benjamin T. and Brown, Kristina and Bruening, Jovita and Calhoun-Sauls, Ann and Callahan, Shannon P. and Chagnon, Elizabeth and Chandler, Jesse and Chartier, Christopher R. and Cheung, Felix and Christopherson, Cody D. and Cillessen, Linda and Clay, Russ and Cleary, Hayley and Cloud, Mark D. and Cohn, Michael and Cohoon, Johanna and Columbus, Simon and Cordes, Andreas and Costantini, Giulio and Alvarez, Leslie D. Cramblet and Cremata, Ed and Crusius, Jan and DeCoster, Jamie and DeGaetano, Michelle A. and Della Penna, Nicolas and den Bezemer, Bobby and Deserno, Marie K. and Devitt, Olivia and Dewitte, Laura and Dobolyi, David G. and Dodson, Geneva T. and Donnellan, M. Brent and Donohue, Ryan and Dore, Rebecca A. and Dorrough, Angela and Dreber, Anna and Dugas, Michelle and Dunn, Elizabeth W. and Easey, Kayleigh and Eboigbe, Sylvia and Eggleston, Casey and Embley, Jo and Epskamp, Sacha and Errington, Timothy M. and Estel, Vivien and Farach, Frank J. and Feather, Jenelle and Fedor, Anna and Fernandez-Castilla, Belen and Fiedler, Susann and Field, James G. and Fitneva, Stanka A. and Flagan, Taru and Forest, Amanda L. and Forsell, Eskil and Foster, Joshua D. and Frank, Michael C. and Frazier, Rebecca S. and Fuchs, Heather and Gable, Philip and Galak, Jeff and Galliani, Elisa Maria and Gampa, Anup and Garcia, Sara and Gazarian, Douglas and Gilbert, Elizabeth and Giner-Sorolla, Roger and Gl{\"o}ckner, Andreas and G{\"o}llner, Lars and Goh, Jin X. and Goldberg, Rebecca and Goodbourn, Patrick T. and Gordon-McKeon, Shauna and Gorges, Bryan and Gorges, Jessie and Goss, Justin and Graham, Jesse and Grange, James A. and Gray, Jeremy and Hartgerink, Chris and Hartshorne, Joshua and Hasselman, Fred and Hayes, Timothy and Heikensten, Emma and Henninger, Felix and Hodsoll, John and Holubar, Taylor and Hoogendoorn, Gea and Humphries, Denise J. and Hung, Cathy O. -Y. and Immelman, Nathali and Irsik, Vanessa C. and Jahn, Georg and Jaekel, Frank and Jekel, Marc and Johannesson, Magnus and Johnson, Larissa G. and Johnson, David J. and Johnson, Kate M. and Johnston, William J. and Jonas, Kai and Joy-Gaba, Jennifer A. and Kappes, Heather Barry and Kelso, Kim and Kidwell, Mallory C. and Kim, Seung Kyung and Kirkhart, Matthew and Kleinberg, Bennett and Knezevic, Goran and Kolorz, Franziska Maria and Kossakowski, Jolanda J. and Krause, Robert Wilhelm and Krijnen, Job and Kuhlmann, Tim and Kunkels, Yoram K. and Kyc, Megan M. and Lai, Calvin K. and Laique, Aamir and Lakens, Daniel and Lane, Kristin A. and Lassetter, Bethany and Lazarevic, Ljiljana B. and LeBel, Etienne P. and Lee, Key Jung and Lee, Minha and Lemm, Kristi and Levitan, Carmel A. and Lewis, Melissa and Lin, Lin and Lin, Stephanie and Lippold, Matthias and Loureiro, Darren and Luteijn, Ilse and Mackinnon, Sean and Mainard, Heather N. and Marigold, Denise C. and Martin, Daniel P. and Martinez, Tylar and Masicampo, E. J. and Matacotta, Josh and Mathur, Maya and May, Michael and Mechin, Nicole and Mehta, Pranjal and Meixner, Johannes and Melinger, Alissa and Miller, Jeremy K. and Miller, Mallorie and Moore, Katherine and M{\"o}schl, Marcus and Motyl, Matt and M{\"u}ller, Stephanie M. and Munafo, Marcus and Neijenhuijs, Koen I. and Nervi, Taylor and Nicolas, Gandalf and Nilsonne, Gustav and Nosek, Brian A. and Nuijten, Michele B. and Olsson, Catherine and Osborne, Colleen and Ostkamp, Lutz and Pavel, Misha and Penton-Voak, Ian S. and Perna, Olivia and Pernet, Cyril and Perugini, Marco and Pipitone, R. Nathan and Pitts, Michael and Plessow, Franziska and Prenoveau, Jason M. and Rahal, Rima-Maria and Ratliff, Kate A. and Reinhard, David and Renkewitz, Frank and Ricker, Ashley A. and Rigney, Anastasia and Rivers, Andrew M. and Roebke, Mark and Rutchick, Abraham M. and Ryan, Robert S. and Sahin, Onur and Saide, Anondah and Sandstrom, Gillian M. and Santos, David and Saxe, Rebecca and Schlegelmilch, Rene and Schmidt, Kathleen and Scholz, Sabine and Seibel, Larissa and Selterman, Dylan Faulkner and Shaki, Samuel and Simpson, William B. and Sinclair, H. Colleen and Skorinko, Jeanine L. M. and Slowik, Agnieszka and Snyder, Joel S. and Soderberg, Courtney and Sonnleitner, Carina and Spencer, Nick and Spies, Jeffrey R. and Steegen, Sara and Stieger, Stefan and Strohminger, Nina and Sullivan, Gavin B. and Talhelm, Thomas and Tapia, Megan and te Dorsthorst, Anniek and Thomae, Manuela and Thomas, Sarah L. and Tio, Pia and Traets, Frits and Tsang, Steve and Tuerlinckx, Francis and Turchan, Paul and Valasek, Milan and Van Aert, Robbie and van Assen, Marcel and van Bork, Riet and van de Ven, Mathijs and van den Bergh, Don and van der Hulst, Marije and van Dooren, Roel and van Doorn, Johnny and van Renswoude, Daan R. and van Rijn, Hedderik and Vanpaemel, Wolf and Echeverria, Alejandro Vasquez and Vazquez, Melissa and Velez, Natalia and Vermue, Marieke and Verschoor, Mark and Vianello, Michelangelo and Voracek, Martin and Vuu, Gina and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan and Weerdmeester, Joanneke and Welsh, Ashlee and Westgate, Erin C. and Wissink, Joeri and Wood, Michael and Woods, Andy and Wright, Emily and Wu, Sining and Zeelenberg, Marcel and Zuni, Kellylynn},
  title     = {Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science},
  series = {Science},
  volume    = {349},
  journal   = {Science},
  number    = {6251},
  publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science},
  address   = {Washington},
  organization    = {Open Sci Collaboration},
  issn      = {1095-9203},
  doi       = {10.1126/science.aac4716},
  pages     = {8},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47\% of original effect sizes were in the 95\% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39\% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68\% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.},
  language  = {en}
}