4.5 Article

Methodology of conceptual specification of models in global tectonics

期刊

EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATICS
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 1309-1322

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s12145-022-00807-6

关键词

Knowledge capture; Plate tectonics; Expansion; Theory of multitudes; Donbassorium; Event bush

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global tectonics has evolved from intuitive guesses to a comprehensive understanding of Earth dynamics based on the plate tectonic concept and numerical simulations. A methodology is proposed to diversify classical models using the theory of multitudes, allowing for the inclusion of alternative theories and promoting consensus in the scientific community. This methodology is already available for use in geoscience and will further demonstrate its potential with the development of specialized software and web-based solutions.
Global tectonics has evolved from intuitive guesses based on fragmentary data to an objective, impartial vision of the Earth dynamics. This vision has been firmly based on the plate tectonic concept and supported by physical models and numerical simulation. However, the object of modeling is so complex that even the most advanced theory needs to look for ad hoc solutions in particular cases, sometimes rolling back from quantitative to the conceptual level. A methodology is proposed to conceptually diversify classical model based on the newly suggested logical formalism, the theory of multitudes. It spans from purely abstract framework (yet quite suitable for representing knowledge of global tectonics) to a practical tool, the event bush, able to mimic the evolution of particular geological environments. Interestingly, this opens an opportunity to include the most viable pieces of alternative theories, thus reconciling the views and decreasing the faction in the scientific community. The proposed methodology is ready for use in the geoscience right now but will show yet more of its potential with development of special software and web-based solutions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据