How subduction broke up Pangaea with implications for the supercontinent cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mechanisms that can explain the Mesozoic motion of Pangaea in a palaeomagnetic mantle reference frame may also be able to explain its breakup. Calculations indicate that Pangaea moved along a non-rigid path in the mantle frame between the late Triassic and early Jurassic. The breakup of Pangaea may have happened as a response to this non-rigid motion. Tectonic forces applied to the margins of Pangaea as a consequence of subduction at its peripheries can explain both the motion and deformation of Pangaea with a single mechanism. In contrast, mantle forces applied to the base of Pangaea appear to be inconsistent with the kinematic constraints and do not explain the change in supercontinent motion that accompanied the breakup event. Top-down plate tectonics are inferred to have caused the breakup of Pangaea. Strong coupling between the mantle and lithosphere may not have been the case during the Phanerozoic eon when the Pangaean supercontinent formed and subsequently dispersed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".