MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965348170 · doi:10.1130/g46376.1

On plate tectonics and ocean temperatures

2019· article· en· W2965348170 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Vérard, Ján Veizer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPhanerozoicSeawaterPlate tectonicsSeafloor spreadingHydrothermal circulationTectonicsHydrothermal ventMid-ocean ridgePaleontologyEarth scienceOceanographyRidgeCenozoicStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plate tectonics, the principal vehicle for dissipation of planetary energy, is believed to buffer the δ18O of seawater at its near-modern value of 0‰ SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water) because the hot and cold cells of hydrothermal circulation at oceanic ridges cancel each other. The persistence of plate tectonics over eons apparently favors attribution of the well-documented oxygen isotope secular trends for carbonates (cherts, phosphates) to progressively warmer oceans, from 40–70 °C in the early Paleozoic to 60–100 °C in the Archean. We argue that these oceanic hydrothermal systems are dominated by low-temperature (<350 °C) cells that deplete the percolating water in 18O. Seawater δ18O is therefore a proxy for, rather than being buffered by, the intensity of plate tectonics. Detrending the Phanerozoic carbonate δ18Oc secular trend for its “tectonic” component yields a stationary time series that, interpreted as a proxy for Phanerozoic climate, indicates low-latitude shallow ocean temperatures oscillating between 10 and 30 °C around a baseline of 17 °C, attributes comparable to modern temperature values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207