MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251968905 · doi:10.1130/g36303.1

Revision of Paleogene plate motions in the Pacific and implications for the Hawaiian-Emperor bend

2015· article· en· W4251968905 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicky M. Wright, R. Dietmar Müller, Maria Seton, Simon Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightEmperorCitationIconArt historyHistoryDownloadLibrary scienceGeologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Article| May 01, 2015 Revision of Paleogene plate motions in the Pacific and implications for the Hawaiian-Emperor bend Nicky M. Wright; Nicky M. Wright EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar R. Dietmar Müller; R. Dietmar Müller EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Maria Seton; Maria Seton EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Simon E. Williams Simon E. Williams EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Geology (2015) 43 (5): 455–458. https://doi.org/10.1130/G36303.1 Article history received: 23 Sep 2014 rev-recd: 25 Feb 2015 accepted: 03 Mar 2015 first online: 09 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Nicky M. Wright, R. Dietmar Müller, Maria Seton, Simon E. Williams; Revision of Paleogene plate motions in the Pacific and implications for the Hawaiian-Emperor bend. Geology 2015;; 43 (5): 455–458. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G36303.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search Abstract Understanding the relative motion between the Pacific plate and its neighboring plates in the Paleogene has important consequences for deciphering the relationship between absolute and relative plate motions in the Pacific Ocean basin, the history of circum-Pacific subduction, and the cause of the Hawaiian-Emperor bend (HEB). We quantitatively model the Farallon/Vancouver-Pacific-Antarctic seafloor spreading history from 67 to 33 Ma based on a comprehensive synthesis of magnetic anomaly and fracture identifications. We find a well-constrained increase from 75 ± 5 mm/yr to 101 ± 5 mm/yr in Pacific-Farallon full spreading rates between 57.6 Ma and 55.9 Ma, followed by a stepwise increase to 182 ± 2 mm/yr from 49.7 to 40.1 Ma. The increases in Pacific-Farallon spreading rates are not accompanied by any statistically significant change in spreading direction. The 57.6–55.9 Ma surge of Pacific-Farallon spreading reflects an eastward acceleration in Farallon plate motion, as it precedes west Pacific subduction initiation and is not associated with any significant change in Pacific-Antarctic spreading. We interpret the increase in Pacific-Farallon spreading rates after ca. 50 Ma as a consequence of further acceleration in Farallon plate motion. We find no indication of a major change in Pacific plate absolute motion at this time. Our model suggests that changes in relative motion direction between the Pacific and Farallon and Pacific and Antarctic plates were insignificant around the formation time of the HEB (ca. 47.5 Ma), and the bend is largely a consequence of Hawaiian hotspot motion, which ceased rapid motion after 47 Ma. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207