Counterclockwise Rotation of the Arctic Alaska Plate: Best Available Model or Untenable Hypothesis for the Opening of the Amerasia Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Amerasian Basin and Margins: New Developments and Results Summary: For the past thirty years the most widely aeeepted model for the opening of Amerasia Basin of the Aretie Oeean has been that the basin openecl by eountereloekwise rotation of northern Alaska and acljaeent Russia (Aretie Alaska plate) away frorn the Canadian Aretie Arehipelago about a pole in the Maekenzie Delta region.Reeently LANE (1997) has ealled this modcl into question.Thus it is worth reviewing the main data and arguments for and against the model to determine if indeed it is untenable as claimed by Lane, 01' is still the best available model.The main evidenee in favour of the modcl includes the alignment of diverse geologieal lineaments ancl the eoineiclenee of Alaskan, Valanginian paleomagnetie poles with the eratonie one following plate restoration employing the rotation model.The odds of such restored matches oeeurring by chance are astronornic and thus sueh data provide very eonvineing evidenee for the rotation hypothesis.Reeent gravity and acromagnetic data have allowed the interpretation of a former spreading centrc with flanking anornalies.The orienration of these features is compatiblc with the rotation hypothesis, thus adding further support to the model.A review of the various points raised by LANE (1997) against the rotation model reveals that sorne arguments are bascd on insuffieient and inconclusive data, others are unsupported interpretations and still others are based on a selecti ve marshalling of data.Overall it is assessed that none of Lanc's points argue convineingly against the rotation model anel that such a model is elearly the best available one for the opening of the Amerasia Basin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".