Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of episodicity in tectonic processes pre-dates acceptance of the plate tectonic paradigm (e.g., Umbgrove, 1940; Holmes, 1951; Sutton, 1963). It was specifi cally advocated by Wilson (1966) when he made the case that ocean basins repeatedly opened and closed, a process now known as “Wilson cycles” (Dewey and Burke, 1974). The relationship between tectonic episodicity and the supercontinent cycle was fi rst proposed by Worsley et al. (1982, 1984), who argued that episodic peaks in the number of continental collisions refl ect supercontinent amalgamation, and that episodes of rift-related mafi c dike swarms record supercontinent breakup. These authors identifi ed trends in tectonic activity, platform development, climate, life and stable isotopes that accompanied supercontinent amalgamation, breakup and dispersal (Nance et al. 2013). Although not universal (e.g., Stern, 2008), a broad consensus has emerged over the past 30 years that repeated cycles of supercontinent amalgamation and dispersal occurred since the late Archean, with profound effect on the evolution of the Earth’s geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere. Statistical peaks in the age distributions of orogenic granites and detrital zircons, as well as negative e Hf excursions in zircons may match the timing of supercontinent amalgamation. As Hf is the more incompatible element, Lu/Hf is lower in the crust and higher in the depleted mantle relative to the bulk earth, and the crust therefore evolves towards negative eHf values. Whether these eHf data imply episodicity, a preservational bias, or a combination of both phenomena is debated (e.g., Roberts, 2012; Cawood et al., 2013; Nance et al., 2013). The mechanisms potentially responsible for the supercontinent
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".