MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087735662 · doi:10.1029/2020gc009214

A Global Data Set of Present‐Day Oceanic Crustal Age and Seafloor Spreading Parameters

2020· article· en· W3087735662 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Seton, R. Dietmar Müller, Sabin Zahirovic, Simon Williams, Nicky M. Wright, John Cannon, Joanne M. Whittaker, Kara J. Matthews, Rebecca McGirr

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsARC Resources (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersAustralian Research CouncilAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsGeologyCrustSeafloor spreadingOceanic crustTectonicsSubductionSeismologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present an updated oceanic crustal age grid and a set of complementary grids including spreading rate, asymmetry, direction, and obliquity. Our data set is based on a selected set of magnetic anomaly identifications and the plate tectonic model of Müller et al. (2019, 10.1029/2018TC005462 ). We find the mean age of oceanic crust is 64.2 Myr, slightly older than previous estimates, mainly due to the inclusion of pockets of Mesozoic aged crust in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and improvements to the Jurassic Pacific triangle. This older crust is partly compensated by additional Cenozoic‐aged back‐arc basin crust not included in previous models. The distribution of spreading modes based on area of preserved crust is relatively equal between slow (20–55 mm/yr) and fast (75–180 mm/yr) spreading systems at 33% and 39%, respectively. Crust transitional between fast and slow, or intermediate systems (55–75 mm/yr), cover 20% of the preserved ocean floor with much smaller proportions of crust formed at ultraslow (5%) and super‐fast (3%) spreading systems. Slow and intermediate spreading systems exhibit the most stable behavior in terms of spreading asymmetry and obliquity, with the widest distribution of obliquities occurring at ultraslow spreading systems, consistent with present‐day observations. Our confidence grid provides a complementary resource for nonexperts to identify those parts of the age grid that are least well constrained. Our grids in 6, 2, and 1 arc min resolution as well as our python workflow, isopolate , used to compute our data sets are freely available in online repositories and on the GPlates data portal.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations355
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Geophysics GeosystemsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207