Relocation of the tectonic boundary between the Raukumara and Wairoa Domains (East Coast, North Island, New Zealand): Implications for the rotation history of the Hikurangi margin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Paleomagnetic studies of Neogene marine sediments have documented large clockwise rotations of the Hikurangi margin (East Coast, North Island) during the Neogene, with the exception of the Raukumara Peninsula, which is unrotated with respect to the Australian plate. Immediately south of the Raukumara Peninsula, the Wairoa region has been rotated clockwise by 50–60°; the boundary between these domains is associated with a change in regional structural trends. However, a declination of 70 ± 14° reported from Otaian (19–22 Ma) sediments in the Rakauroa area is located to the north of this change. Characterisation of how differential rotations have been accommodated along the Hikurangi margin has been frustrated by this apparent mismatch between paleomagnetic and structural data. Paleomagnetic analysis of two new Rakauroa localities has yielded declinations of 16 ± 7° and 19 ± 9°, consistent with expected values for the Australian plate. This region is therefore not part of the Wairoa Domain. A strong viscous magnetic overprint was observed in many samples, the incomplete removal of which resulted in the misidentification of a large declination anomaly in the previous study. The paleomagnetically defined boundary between the Raukumara and Wairoa Domains now coincides with the area where regional structural trends alter. Reassignment of the Rakauroa area to the Raukumara Domain also results in a revised rotation history for the Wairoa Domain, suggesting rotation rates of 4–5°/m.y. since the late Miocene (5–10 Ma), and potentially no earlier rotation. No reliable record of early and middle Miocene vertical axis rotation on the Hikurangi margin now exists north of Marlborough; further studies are required to properly constrain the rotation history for this time interval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".