Influences on the positioning of mantle plumes following supercontinent formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several mantle convection studies analyzing the effects of supercontinent formation and dispersal show that the genesis of subcontinental plumes results from the formation of subduction zones at the edges of the supercontinent rather than from the effect of continental thermal insulation or thermochemical piles. However, the influence of subduction zone location on the position of subcontinental plumes has received little attention. This study analyzes 2‐D and 3‐D numerical models of supercontinent formation (in an isochemical mantle) to assess the role of subduction and mantle viscosity contrast in the generation of subcontinental mantle plumes. We find that once a critical supercontinent width is reached, plumes do not form under the center of a supercontinent. In studies featuring a low viscosity lower mantle, the surface positions of the initial plumes (arriving within 90 Myr of supercontinent assembly) become locked beneath the continent at a distance 2000–3000 km from the continental margin. However, the broad downwellings in simulations that feature a high‐viscosity lower mantle trigger plumes at a greater distance from the continental margin subduction. For all mantle viscosity profiles, subcontinental plumes show dependence on the location of supercontinent margin subduction. As theories differ on the role of core‐mantle boundary chemical piles in plume formation, it is significant that our isochemical models show that the formation of subduction zones at the margins of a supercontinent has a profound effect on subcontinental mantle dynamics. Our results may help to explain what determined the eruption sites of past (and future) large igneous provinces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".