Magmatic expressions of continental lithosphere removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gravitational lithosphere removal in continental interior has been inferred from various observations, including anomalous surface deflections and magmatism. We use numerical models and a simplified theoretical analysis to investigate how lithosphere removal can be recognized in the magmatic record. One style of removal is a Rayleigh‐Taylor‐type instability, where removal occurs through dripping. The associated magmatism depends on the lithosphere thermal structure. Four types of magmatism are predicted: (1) For relatively hot lithosphere (e.g., back arcs), the lithosphere can be conductively heated and melted during removal, while the asthenosphere upwells and undergoes decompression melting. If removal causes significant lithospheric thinning, the deep crust may be heated and melted. (2) For moderately warm lithosphere (e.g., average Phanerozoic lithosphere) in which the lithosphere root has a low density, only the lithosphere may melt. (3) If the lithosphere root has a high density in moderately warm lithosphere, only asthenosphere melt is predicted. (4) For cold lithosphere (e.g., cratons), no magmatism is induced. An alternate style of removal is delamination, where dense lithosphere peels along Moho. In most cases, the lithosphere sinks too rapidly to melt. However, asthenosphere can upwell to the base of the crust, resulting in asthenospheric and crustal melts. In delamination, magmatism migrates laterally with the detachment point; in contrast, magmatism in Rayleigh‐Taylor‐type instability has a symmetric shape and converges toward the drip center. The models may explain the diversity of magmatism observed in areas with inferred lithosphere removal, including the Puna Plateau and the southern Sierra Nevada.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".