The Rationale and Essential Elements for the New ‘Pirate’ Model of Caribbean Tectonics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different studies have proposed either Pacific or in situ models for the tectonic evolution of the Caribbean Plate. Pacific model proponents, in general, extrapolate data obtained at the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the Caribbean Plate to indicate the arrival of the Caribbean Plate from the west relative to North and South America since the Late Cretaceous. In contrast, for the same period of time, in situ model proponents interpret other data as evidence of west -east extension of the western or central Caribbean and the possible preservation of Atlantic or proto-Caribbean lithosphere within present Caribbean Plate boundaries. The limitations of both models in explaining some parts of the geological record provide the rationale for considering further alternatives. The 'Pirate' model of Caribbean tectonics is a new hypothesis for the Cenozoic era that involves: (1) microplate capture in the western Caribbean of blocks derived from adjacent parts of North and South America, and (2) counter-clockwise rotation of the Caribbean Plate relative to North and South America. Whereas new Caribbean lithosphere is hypothesized to have entered Middle America from the west in the Pacific model, and from depth in the in situ model, the Pirate model postulates that new Caribbean lithosphere entered the western Caribbean region from the north or south.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".