Revision of Paleogene plate motions in the Pacific and implications for the Hawaiian-Emperor bend: REPLY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the relative motion between the Pacific plate and its neighboring plates in the Paleogene has important consequences for deciphering the relationship between absolute and relative plate motions in the Pacific Ocean basin, the history of circum-Pacific subduction, and the cause of the Hawaiian-Emperor bend (HEB). We quantitatively model the Farallon/Vancouver-Pacific-Antarctic seafloor spreading history from 67 to 33 Ma based on a comprehensive synthesis of magnetic anomaly and fracture identifications. We find a well-constrained increase from 75 ± 5 mm/yr to 101 ± 5 mm/yr in Pacific-Farallon full spreading rates between 57.6 Ma and 55.9 Ma, followed by a stepwise increase to 182 ± 2 mm/yr from 49.7 to 40.1 Ma. The increases in Pacific-Farallon spreading rates are not accompanied by any statistically significant change in spreading direction. The 57.6–55.9 Ma surge of Pacific-Farallon spreading reflects an eastward acceleration in Farallon plate motion, as it precedes west Pacific subduction initiation and is not associated with any significant change in Pacific-Antarctic spreading. We interpret the increase in Pacific-Farallon spreading rates after ca. 50 Ma as a consequence of further acceleration in Farallon plate motion. We find no indication of a major change in Pacific plate absolute motion at this time. Our model suggests that changes in relative motion direction between the Pacific and Farallon and Pacific and Antarctic plates were insignificant around the formation time of the HEB (ca. 47.5 Ma), and the bend is largely a consequence of Hawaiian hotspot motion, which ceased rapid motion after 47 Ma.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".