Pannotia: in defence of its existence and geodynamic significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The status of Pannotia as an Ediacaran supercontinent, or even its mere existence as a coherent large landmass, is controversial. The effect of its hypothesized amalgamation is generally ignored in mantle convection models claiming the transition from Rodinia to Pangaea represents a single supercontinent cycle. We apply three geodynamic scenarios to Pannotia amalgamation that are tested using regional geology. Scenarios involving quasi-stationary mantle convection patterns are not supported by the geological record. A scenario involving feedback between the supercontinent cycle and global mantle convection patterns predicts upwellings beneath the Gondwanan portion of Pannotia and the arrival of plumes along the entire Gondwanan (but not Laurentian) margin beginning at c. 0.6 Ga. Such a scenario is compatible with regional geology, but the candidates for plume magmatism we propose require testing by detailed geochemical and isotopic studies. If verified, this scenario could provide geodynamic explanations for the origins of the late Neoproterozoic and Early Paleozoic Iapetus and Rheic oceans and the terranes that were repeatedly detached from their margins.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".