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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".