Exploring the geology of the central Arctic Ocean; understanding the basin features in place and time
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the deep Arctic Ocean is largely unwritten. The means to understand this history may now be at hand. Bathymetry and potential field data have accumulated to the point it is possible to ask specific questions about the origins and evolution of the individual ridges and basins. The two primary basins have contrasting histories and deficits of understanding. The Eurasia Basin, formed during the Cenozoic, is well understood as far as the kinematics are concerned. The dynamics of ultraslow spreading, as observed on the Gakkel Ridge, are not well understood. It is widely thought that the Amerasia Basin formed during the Mesozoic. Most previous work has begun with a large-scale model of the basin tectonics and fit the ridges and basins it into this pattern. Enough is now known to establish the internal structure and relations from specific observations rather than a priori assumptions. This paper reviews knowledge about the central Arctic Ocean and proposes what should be done to develop a historical understanding of basin history. Ground truth from Arctic Ocean sediments is necessary. It will not be possible to establish the history of events, in geological time, until the sediments have been sampled and dated.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it