Comment on “Assessing Discrepancies Between Previous Plate Kinematic Models of Mesozoic Iberia and Their Constraints” by Barnett‐Moore Et Al.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In their recent paper, Barnett‐Moore et al. (2016) reflect on current models of Iberian plate motion in the Jurassic and Cretaceous as well as ongoing debates on the reliability of the various types of kinematic data that form independent constraints on Iberia's motion relative to Eurasia. They question the validity of various marine geophysical, seismic, tomographic, geological, and paleomagnetic data sets from the Bay of Biscay, Central Atlantic Ocean, and Iberia for kinematic reconstruction of Iberia and conclude that neither models invoking Aptian‐Albian transtension, nor compression, are consistent with currently available data. An important element in their analysis is that they discard the large paleomagnetic data set from the Jurassic and Cretaceous from Iberia based on perceived limitations of that data set. In addition, they argue that seismic tomographic images exclude a scenario of subduction in the Aptian‐Albian in the Pyrenees, and based on this “question the validity of current plate reconstructions, their constraints, and geodynamic scenarios, which are in support of this scenario [e.g., Vissers et al., 2016].” We welcome the discussion raised by Barnett‐Moore et al. (2016) on the reliability and usefulness of paleomagnetic data as independent constraint for Iberia's plate motion in the Mesozoic. Taking these paleomagnetic data at face value, Vissers et al. (2016) recently showed that these are consistent with an ~40° counterclockwise rotation of Iberia in the Aptian, requiring up to 500 km of Aptian convergence across the Pyrenees, that is, through subduction. In this comment, we aim to critically assess whether and how the concerns on the quality of paleomagnetic data raised by Barnett‐Moore et al. (2016) may allow for an alternative explanation, particularly one with a Mesozoic rotation of Iberia that is small enough so as to not requiring subduction. We also reassess whether seismic tomographic images indeed refute subduction scenarios, using 8 S wave and P wave tomographic models including those used in Barnett‐Moore et al. (2016).
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 | 0.017 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".