MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062479968 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.20141070

Is the Eurasia-Cimmeria Collision Linked to Pangea Breakup?

2014· article· en· W2062479968 on OpenAlexaff
D. Fraser Keppie

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Nova Scotia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySupercontinentSubductionPaleozoicPaleontologyBreakupFibrous jointCollisionClockwiseSeismologyRiftGeophysicsTectonicsRotation (mathematics)GeometryPhysicsCraton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Pangean supercontinent extended and broke apart in the early Jurassic, but an understanding of how and why this event took place when it did has remained elusive. An analysis of the angular velocities governing the global plate circulation during this period reveals that the final closure of the Paleo-Tethys Ocean between Eurasia and Cimmeria and the early opening of the Atlantic Ocean between North America and South America/Africa were governed by symmetric motions sharing a common rotation axis. This symmetry is remarkable and is consistent with a subduction-driven mechanism in the disaggregation of Pangea. A basic hypothesis is that the Eurasia-Cimmeria collision disrupted the clockwise spin of Pangea during the Triassic. Pangea rifted because tensional stresses were redistributed within Pangea following the collision. Rifting was localized across zones of pre-existing thick-skinned weakness within Pangea (late Paleozoic suture zones) which were optimally-oriented parallel to the north Tethyan subduction system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207