Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the uncertainties in hot spot reconstructions and the significance of moving hot spot reference frames

Open access
O'Neill, Craig, Müller, Dietmar, Steinberger, Bernhard·2005·Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems

Abstract

It is widely accepted that substantial relative motion has occurred between the Indo‐Atlantic and Pacific hot spots since the Late Cretaceous. At the same time, a fixed Indo‐Atlantic hot spot reference frame has been argued for and used since the advent of plate tectonics, implying relatively little motion between the hot spots in this domain since about 130 Ma. Most plumes purported to have caused these hot spots, while being advected in the global‐scale mantle flow field, are assumed to move an order of magnitude more slowly than plates. However, the lifetime of a plume may be over ∼100 Myr, and the integrated motion of a plume is expected to be significant over these times. The uncertainties inherent in hot spot reconstructions are of a magnitude similar to the expected plume motion, and so any differences between a fixed and moving frame of reference must be discernible beyond the level of these uncertainties. We present a method for constraining hot spot reconstruction uncertainties, similar to that in use for relative plate motion. We use a modified Hellinger criterion of fit for the hot spot problem, using track geometries and radiometric dating, and derive covariance matrices for our Indo‐Atlantic rotations for the last 120 Myr. However, any given mantle convection model introduces additional uncertainties into such models, based on its model parameters and starting conditions (e.g., choice of global tomography model, viscosity profile, nature of mantle phase transitions). We use an interactive evolutionary approach, where we constrain the hot spot motion resulting from convection models to fit paleomagnetic constraints, and converge on an acceptable motion solution by varying unknowns over several generations of simulations. Our hot spot motion model shows large motion (5–10°) of the Indo‐Atlantic hot spots for times >80 Ma, consistent with available paleomagnetic constraints. The differences between the fixed and moving hot spot reference frames are not discernible over the level of uncertainty in such rotations for times <80 Ma.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2004gc000784

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
O'Neill, C., Müller, D., & Steinberger, B.
Venue
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
Published
2005-04
Volume
6
Issue
4
ISSN
1525-2027 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1492331027
Cited by
379
References
70
FWCI
27.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the uncertainties in hot spot reconstructions and the significance of moving hot spot reference frames. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2004gc000784
The paper
O'Neill, C., Müller, D., & Steinberger, B. (2005). On the uncertainties in hot spot reconstructions and the significance of moving hot spot reference frames. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gc000784

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.