Yangtze and Cathaysia blocks of South China: Their separate positions in Gondwana until early Paleozoic juxtaposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The position of South China in Gondwana remains controversial. In all previous models, the Yangtze and Cathaysia blocks, the two major components of South China, were amalgamated by the Tonian, and South China was considered to be a single coherent block in Gondwana. Based on a summary and critical reevaluation of available paleomagnetic, paleontological, stratigraphic, and detrital zircon data, we propose that the Yangtze and Cathaysia blocks were not juxtaposed until the early Paleozoic and were located at two separate parts of the northern margin of Gondwana before that time. The Yangtze block was located to the northwest of India in the Ediacaran and early Cambrian. Cathaysia was close to or a part of northern Australia in the Ediacaran, when Australia and India were separated by the Kuunga Ocean, and amalgamated with the eastern margin of India in the late Ediacaran to early Cambrian when the ocean closed. Our model implies that the early Paleozoic orogenesis in South China could have been related to two distinct events, the late Ediacaran to early Cambrian collision of Cathaysia/Australia with India (the Kuunga orogeny) and the Late Ordovician amalgamation of Cathaysia with Yangtze. It also implies that the Yangtze and Cathaysia blocks likely occupied two separate positions in Rodinia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".