Deep subduction and rapid exhumation: Role of crustal strength and strain weakening in continental subduction and ultrahigh‐pressure rock exhumation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exhumation of crustal ultra‐high‐pressure (UHP) material depends on temporal and spatial variations in its detachment within the subduction channel. This dependence is investigated using numerical models with variable initial crustal strengths, representing a range of initial crustal compositions, and parameterized strain weakening, representing a range of processes that reduce effective crustal viscosity during deformation. Competition between down‐channel shear traction, favoring subduction, and up‐channel buoyancy, favoring exhumation, is expressed as the exhumation number, E , which can vary with time and position along the channel. Exhumed lower strength crust, which resists subduction owing to weak down‐channel traction, records peak conditions <35 kbar and exhumation rates <30 km Ma −1 . Higher strength crust is efficiently subducted to UHP depths ( E < 1), recording peak pressures >38 kbar. Given sufficient strain weakening, exhumation proceeds at >60 km Ma −1 , indicating that buoyancy ( E ≫ 1) drives exhumation in these models. In all models, exhuming UHP material forms a deforming ductile plume, with a range of possible structural relationships predicted between exhumed UHP and HP materials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".