Devonian magnetostratigraphy: new data and old problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global polarity time scale (GPTS) is relatively unconstrained for the Paleozoic, particularly the Devonian. Constraining the GPTS and reversal frequency for the Devonian is crucial for the understanding of the behaviour of Earth’s magnetic field. Furthermore, construction of a GPTS for the Paleozoic could provide a valuable tool for age determination in other studies. However, most paleomagnetic data from the Devonian is problematic. The data are difficult to interpret and don’t have a single easy to resolve (partial or full) overprint. Paleointensity studies suggest that the field was much weaker than the field of today, which could have been accompanied by many reversals (a hyperreversing field). In order to improve the geomagnetic polarity time scale in the Devonian, and quantify the number of reversals in this time, we sampled three Devonian sections in Germany, Poland and Canada. These sections show evidence that the rocks were not significantly heated, and they show little evidence for remineralisation. This minimises the chance the rocks were remagnetised after the Devonian. Our data show that even when rocks are well qualified to have reliably recorded the Devonian field, the interpretation is not straightforward. We also discuss problems with the Devonian GPTS as presented in the geologic timescale.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".