Bibliographic record
Abstract
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&s;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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".