MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093604769 · doi:10.1029/2003jb002853

Preferred reversal paths caused by a heterogeneous conducting layer at the base of the mantle

2004· article· en· W2093604769 on OpenAlexaff
Simona Costin, B. A. Buffett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeophysicsMantle (geology)Geomagnetic reversalEarth's magnetic fieldPaleomagnetismGeodesyPerturbation (astronomy)Geomagnetic poleMagnetic fieldPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time variations in the geomagnetic field induce secondary electric currents in the mantle, which contribute to the magnetic field at the surface. We explore the possibility that currents in a conducting layer at the base of the mantle disturb the transition field during magnetic reversals and alter the path of the virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP). We calculate the magnitude of the magnetic perturbation during a reversal and quantify the influence of this perturbation on the VGP reversal path. The calculations show that the VGP reversal path depends on the geographic position of the observation site. A histogram of reversal paths obtained using a randomly distributed set of sites reveals a preferred path through the Americas. When the histogram of reversal paths is evaluated with a limited number of sites, based on locations in existing lava and sediment databases, we find that the paths are confined to Asian and American longitudes, which is compatible with reversal path distributions inferred from paleomagnetic records.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207