Testing the kinematics and timing of the opening of the Amerasia Basin through a new coupled plate kinematic and mantle convection model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most elusive aspects in the evolution of the Arctic is the origin and timing of the opening of the Amerasia Basin. The Amerasia Basin’s central location within the Arctic province makes it a centerpiece in tectonic reconstructions; however its pre-rift configuration and kinematic development remains unclear. To date, several tectonic models have been proposed to explain the evolution of the Amerasia Basin including rotation models, transform and strike slip models incorporating various shear margins and extensional processes. The most widely accepted models suggest that during the Late Jurassic the Arctic Alaska-Chukotka microplate (AACM) underwent counter-clockwise rotation from the Canadian margin due to rifting and seafloor spreading. However many aspects of this model remain debated including the existence and geometry of an intra-Arctic subduction zone and subduction of an ancient ocean basin, the extent and initial geometry of the AACM and whether the Lomonosov Ridge represents a shear, extensional or transform margin. Here, based on a digitized set of tectonic features with timedependent deformation and rotational histories we aim to test these main conflicting tectonic models. Through the construction of topologically-closed polygons for the Arctic since the Mesozoic with the software GPlates, we can ultimately test the different models in a geodynamic context. We compare predicted mantle structure based on imposed surface kinematics to seismic tomography to discern long-wavelength discrepancies between models and provide a new approach to reconciling Arctic tectonics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".