MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400240500 · doi:10.4324/9781003555629-8

Reconstructions of the Circum-Pacific Region

2024· book-chapter· en· W4400240500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D.B. Rowley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeographyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter attempts a simplified paleogeographic assessment of the major allochtonous elements important to the Jurassic of the circum-Pacific region. Sketch reconstructions of the Pliensbachian (~190 Ma), Bathonian (~165 Ma), and Tithonian (~140 Ma) stages are presented. The reconstructions are extremely simplified, in part reflecting the scale of the maps, and in part reflecting a limited understanding of the detailed relationships between the various tectonic elements, the so-called terranes (Coney, Jones, and Monger 1980), that comprise the tectonic collage that characterizes circum-Pacific and Asian regions. A conservative approach has been followed, and on the average only limited motion (on the order of hundreds to thousands of kilometers) between the larger tectonic elements (sometimes referred to as superterranes) has been inferred. No attempt has been made to reconstruct the central Pacific Ocean basin or the plate motions associated with the evolution of the Pacific, Phoenix, Farallón, Kula, Izanagi I, and Izanagi II plates, which have been summarized elsewhere by Hilde, Uyeda, and Kronke (1977), Engebretson, Cox, and Gordon (1984, 1985), and Henderson, Gordon, and Engebretson (1984), among others. The summary presented here depends heavily on our compilation of a Mesozoic and Cenozoic tectonic map of the world (Rowley et al. 1985) as part of the Paleogeographic Atlas Project, as well as on syntheses by Davis, Monger, and Burchfiel (1978), Dickinson (1981), and Hamilton (1978) for the western United States, Monger, Price, and Templeman-Kluit (1982), Monger et al. (1985), and Armstrong (1988) for the Canadian Cordillera, Kosygin and Parfenov (1981) and Parfenov and Natal'in (1985, 1986) for northeast Asia, Kimura, Mihashita, and Miyasaka (1983), and Okada (1982) for Hokaido, Taira and Ogawa (1988), Taira, Saito, and Hashimoto (1983), Hattori (1982), and Tanaka and Nozawa (1977) for Japan, and Sengör (1984, 1987) for Asia. Data for other portions of the circum-Pacific, including Alaska, Asia, Southeast Asia-Indonesia, New Zealand, Antarctica, and South America, are based on a survey of the available literature that is too long to cite here.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesFrench-language works237,207