The good, the bad, and the ugly: Analysis of three arguments in the ongoing debate concerning the polarity of Mesozoic arcs along the western margin of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate concerning eastward versus westward subduction along the western margin of Mesozoic North America involves three main arguments: The tomography argument (westward) claims subducted slabs are observed by tomographic processing of seismic waves; the geologic evidence argument (eastward) claims subduction polarity is recorded by tripartite accretionary complex−forearc basin−magmatic arc assemblages; and the crucial geologic test argument (eastward) claims endemic terranes are characterized by detrital zircons of appropriate age and abundance, particularly Precambrian zircons. Reconstruction of the arguments in standard logic form as categorical syllogisms indicates that all three arguments are valid. However, evaluation of the truth-falsehood of the propositions supporting the arguments suggests: (1) propositions for the tomography argument seem more truthful than false; (2) propositions for the geologic test argument seem more false than truthful; and (3) propositions for the crucial geologic test argument also seem more false than truthful. Thus, the tomography argument appears to be a “good” argument (i.e., valid and sound); the geologic evidence argument appears to be a “bad” argument (i.e., valid and unsound); and the crucial geologic test argument appears to be an “ugly” argument—in the spirit that some mathematical proofs are ugly (i.e., valid and unsound, in addition to being convoluted and couched in vague terms such as “appropriate”). Proposed tests for falsification of the arguments include application of an alternate tomographic processing method to obtain non-wall-like structures in the mantle, demonstration that tripartite successions are not consanguineous, and procurement of additional evidence showing that endemic terranes do not contain Precambrian detrital zircons of appropriate age and abundance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".