“Conjugate margins” – An oversimplification of the complex southern North Atlantic rift and spreading system?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of conjugate margin terminology and studies in the scientific literature is testimony to the contribution that this concept and approach has made to the study of passive margins, and more broadly extensional tectonics. However, when applied to the complex rift, transform and spreading system of the southern North Atlantic (i.e. the passive margins of Newfoundland, Labrador, Ireland, Iberia and southern Greenland), it becomes obvious that at these passive continental margin settings additional geological phenomena complicate this convenient description. These aspects include: 1) the preservation of relatively undeformed continental fragments, 2) formation of transform systems and oblique rifts, 3) triple junctions (with both rift and spreading-axes), 4) multiple failed rift axes, 5) post-breakup processes such as magmatism, 6) localised subduction, and 7) ambiguity in identification of oceanic isochrons. Comparison of different published reconstructions of the region show ambiguity in conducting conjugate margin studies. This demonstrates the need for a more pragmatic approach to the study of continental passive margin settings where a greater emphasis is placed on the inclusion of these possibly complicating features in palinspastic reconstructions, plate tectonic, and evolutionary models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".