Quantification of Pacific Plate Hotspot Tracks Since 80 Ma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The motion of the Pacific plate relative to Pacific hotspots produces age‐progressive chains of volcanoes. Methods of analysis of volcano locations and age dates using a small number of adjustable parameters (10 per chain) are presented. Simple fits to age progressions along Pacific hotspot chains indicate 1 σ dispersions of age dates of ≈±1.0–±3.0 Ma. Motion between the Hawaii and Louisville hotspots differs insignificantly from zero with rates of 2 ± 4 mm/a (=±2 σ ) for 0–48 Ma and 26 ± 34 mm/a (=±2 σ ) for 48–80 Ma. Relative to a mean Pacific hotspot reference frame, motions of the Hawaii, Louisville, and Rurutu hotspots are also insignificant. Therefore plumes underlying these Pacific hotspots may be more stable in a convecting mantle than previously inferred. We find no significant difference in age between the Eocene bends of the Pacific hotspot chains. The best‐fitting assumed‐coeval age for the bends is 47.4 ± 1.0 Ma (=±2 σ ), coincident with the initiation of the doubling of the spreading rate of the Pacific plate relative to the Farallon and Vancouver plates. The initiation of the Eocene collision of India with Eurasia preceded the formation of the bends and was completed after their formation. Initiation of subduction of the Pacific plate in the west and southwest Pacific Ocean Basin likely preceded the formation of the bends, consistent with subduction initiation changing the torque on the Pacific plate such that it started moving in a more westward direction thus creating the Hawaiian‐Emperor Bend.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 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".