How the crust meets the mantle: Lithoprobe perspectives on the Mohorovičić discontinuity and crust–mantle transitionThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme <i>Lithoprobe — parameters, processes, and the evolution of a continent</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of regional geophysical and geological methods throughout two decades of Canada’s Lithoprobe project provides new opportunities to analyze the Mohorovičić discontinuity (Moho) and crust–mantle transition. The transect format employed during Lithoprobe, in which 10 specified regions of Canada were targeted for approximately a decade each, between 1984 and 2003, permitted teams of scientists to focus on geological, geophysical, and tectonic issues for each transect. As a primary objective was to enhance knowledge of the structure of the crust and lithosphere, an obvious target in each transect was the nature and origin of the Moho and crust–mantle transition. Accordingly, the combined results provide new perspectives on the Moho and the relationship of the Moho to the crust–mantle transition. Perhaps the most important result is that the continental geophysical Moho is a deceptively simple feature; it has a variety of signatures at different scales that preclude a single, universally applicable interpretation. In methods that provide large-scale information, such as regional seismic studies, it is a relatively abrupt refraction velocity contrast that often displays a dramatic downward decrease in seismic reflectivity. However, its origin in a geological or tectonic sense is perhaps best determined by careful analyses of structural details near the geophysical Moho, which are complex and varied. In some areas within Canada, it appears that the geophysical Moho may be old and perhaps remains from the time the crust formed; in other areas, it appears to be a relatively young feature that was superimposed onto older crustal fabrics.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".