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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".