Supercontinents: myths, mysteries, and milestones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is an emerging consensus that Earth's landmasses amalgamate quasi-periodically into supercontinents, interpreted to be rigid super-plates essentially lacking tectonically active inner boundaries and showing little internal lithosphere–mantle interactions. The formation and disruption of supercontinents have been linked to changes in sea-level, biogeochemical cycles, global climate change, continental margin sedimentation, large igneous provinces, deep mantle circulation, outer core dynamics and Earth's magnetic field. If these hypotheses are correct, long-term mantle dynamics and much of the geological record, including the distribution of natural resources, may be largely controlled by these cycles. Despite their potential importance, however, many of these proposed links are, to date, permissive rather than proven. Sufficient data are not yet available to verify or fully understand the implications of the supercontinent cycle. Recent advances in many fields of geoscience provide clear directions for investigating the supercontinent cycle hypothesis and its corollaries but they need to be vigorously pursued if these far-reaching ideas are to be substantiated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".