A tectonic solution for the Early Cambrian palaeogeographical enigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Early Cambrian palaeogeographical enigma arises when tectonic reconstructions are made using palaeoclimatic v. palaeomagnetic data that result in possibly contradictory tropical, mid-latitude, and south polar locations for major continents. For example, NW Africa and Cadomia may have lain in a tropical zone (0° to ±30° latitude) based on the presence of archaeocyath reefs, minor evaporites, and carbonate platforms at c. 520 Ma ± 5 Ma or, alternatively, NW Africa and Cadomia may have lain in a south polar zone (90° to 60° south latitude) based on palaeomagnetic constraints. Greater Avalonia may have evolved independently from NW Africa if a dropstone constraint implying polar latitudes at c. 530 Ma and a palaeomagnetic constraint implying c. 50° latitude at c. 505 Ma are accommodated. We show here how counterclockwise rotation of Gondwana during the Cambrian about an interior axis may solve the enigma. Gondwanan apparent polar wander becomes consistent with tropical conditions inferred for NW Africa when adjusted to accommodate constraints placing the south pole near Peru for c. 540–520 Ma. Concurrent counterclockwise rotation of Baltica and Gondwana during the Middle Cambrian may have facilitated separation of Greater Avalonia from Baltica across dextral shear zones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".