MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417048366 · doi:10.2138/gselements.21.6.422

Assembling Pangaea – The Complex Morphology of the Laurussia – Gondwana Collision

2025· article· en· W4417048366 on OpenAlexaff
J. Brendan Murphy, R. Damian Nance, Karel Schulmann, Yvette D. Kuiper, José R. Martı́nez Catalán

Bibliographic record

VenueElements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGondwanaLaurentiaPangaeaOrogenyPaleozoicSubductionPlate tectonicsTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Late Paleozoic convergence and collision between Gondwana and Laurentia resulted in along-strike variations in the Alleghanian–Mauritanide–Variscan orogeny during the assembly of the greater part of Pangaea. A series of ca. 380–290 Ma events segmented the orogen into two principal geodynamic domains with contrasting tectonic evolutions. In the northeast, the European Variscan belt records multiple subduction–collisional tectonic events, including indentation by Laurussian and later Gondwanan promontories and by Gondwana-derived terranes. Late-stage events (330–290 Ma) produced strongly curved deformation belts (oroclines), and late- to post-orogenic extension. In contrast, the southern Appalachians formed south-west of the promontory collisions where subduction of Rheic Ocean remnants produced a continuous Andean-style orogenic arc that preceded ca. 290 Ma terminal collision. We explain Pangaea amalgamation using a global model of mantle convection like that of modern Earth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207