A global apparent polar wander path for the last 320 Ma calculated from site-level paleomagnetic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apparent polar wander paths (APWPs) calculated from paleomagnetic data describe the motion of tectonic plates relative to the Earth's rotation axis through geological time, providing a quantitative paleogeographic framework for studying the evolution of Earth's interior, surface, and atmosphere. Previous APWPs were typically calculated from collections of paleomagnetic poles, with each pole computed from collections of paleomagnetic sites, and each site representing a spot reading of the paleomagnetic field. It was recently shown that the choice of how sites are distributed over poles strongly determines the confidence region around APWPs and possibly the APWP itself, and that the number of paleomagnetic data used to compute a single paleomagnetic pole varies widely and is essentially arbitrary. Here, we use a recently proposed method to overcome this problem and provide a new global APWP for the last 320 million years that is calculated from simulated site-level paleomagnetic data instead of from paleopoles, in which spatial and temporal uncertainties of the original datasets are incorporated. We provide an updated global paleomagnetic database scrutinized against quantitative, stringent quality criteria, and use an updated global plate motion model. The new global APWP follows the same trend as the most recent pole-based APWP but has smaller uncertainties. This demonstrates that the first-order geometry of the global APWP is robust and reproducible. Moreover, we find that previously identified peaks in APW rate disappear when calculating the APWP from site-level data and correcting for a temporal bias in the underlying data. Finally, we show that a higher-resolution global APWP frame may be determined for time intervals with high data density, but that this is not yet feasible for the entire 320–0 Ma time span. Calculating polar wander from site-level data provides opportunities to significantly improve the quality and resolution of the global APWP by collecting large and well-dated paleomagnetic datasets from stable plate interiors, which may contribute to solving detailed Earth scientific problems that rely on a paleomagnetic reference frame.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".