MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The angular velocities of the plates and the velocity of Earth's centre from space geodesy

2010· article· en· W2117580125 on OpenAlexaff
Donald F. Argus, Richard G. Gordon, M. B. Heflin, Chopo Ma, R. J. Eanes, Pascal Willis, W. R. Peltier, S. E. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeodesySatellite geodesyFigure of the EarthGeologyEarth (classical element)Space (punctuation)Angular velocityGeophysicsSeismologyPhysicsAstronomyClassical mechanicsGeodetic datumComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using space geodetic observations from four techniques (GPS, VLBI, SLR and DORIS), we simultaneously estimate the angular velocities of 11 major plates and the velocity of Earth's centre. We call this set of relative plate angular velocities GEODVEL (for GEODesy VELocity).Plate angular velocities depend on the estimate of the velocity of Earth's centre and on the assignment of sites to plates. Most geodetic estimates of the angular velocities of the plates are determined assuming that Earth's centre is fixed in an International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF), and are therefore subject to errors in the estimate of the velocity of Earth's centre. In ITRF2005 and ITRF2000, Earth's centre is the centre of mass of Earth, oceans and atmosphere (CM); the velocity of CM is estimated by SLR observation of LAGEOS's orbit. Herein we define Earth's centre to be the centre of mass of solid Earth (CE); we determine the velocity of CE by assuming that the portions of plate interiors not near the late Pleistocene ice sheets move laterally as if they were part of a rigid spherical cap. The GEODVEL estimate of the velocity of CE is likely nearer the true velocity of CM than are the ITRF2005 and ITRF2000 estimates because (1) no phenomena can sustain a significant velocity between CM and CE, (2) the plates are indeed nearly rigid (aside from vertical motion) and (3) the velocity of CM differs between ITRF2005 and ITRF2000 by an unacceptably large speed of 1.8 mm yr−1. The velocity of Earth's centre in GEODVEL lies between that of ITRF2000 and that of ITRF2005, with the distance from ITRF2005 being about twice that from ITRF2000. Because the GEODVEL estimates of uncertainties in plate angular velocities account for uncertainty in the velocity of Earth's centre, they are more realistic than prior estimates of uncertainties.GEODVEL differs significantly from all prior global sets of relative plate angular velocities determined from space geodesy. For example, the 95 per cent confidence limits for the angular velocities of GEODVEL exclude those of REVEL (Sella et al.) for 34 of the 36 plate pairs that can be formed between any two of the nine plates with the best-constrained motion. The median angular velocity vector difference between GEODVEL and REVEL is 0.028° Myr−1, which is up to 3.1 mm yr−1 on Earth's surface. GEODVEL differs the least from the geodetic angular velocities that Altamimi et al. determine from ITRF2005. GEODVEL's 95 per cent confidence limits exclude 11 of 36 angular velocities of Altamimi et al., and the median difference is 0.015° Myr−1.GEODVEL differs significantly from nearly all relative plate angular velocities averaged over the past few million years, including those of NUVEL-1A. The difference of GEODVEL from updated 3.2 Myr angular velocities is statistically significant for all but two of 36 angular velocities with a median difference of 0.063° Myr−1. Across spreading centres, eight have slowed down while only two have sped up. We conclude that plate angular velocities over the past few decades differ significantly from the corresponding angular velocity averaged over the past 3.2 Myr.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations287
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal International→Same topicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements→French-language works237,207→