The consequences of Canadian Cordillera thermal regime in recent tectonics and elevation: a reviewThis 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>.Geological Survey of Canada Contribution 20090195.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crust and upper mantle thermal regime of the Canadian Cordillera and its tectonic consequences were an important part of the Cordillera Lithoprobe program and related studies. This article provides a review, first of the thermal constraints, and then of consequences in high surface elevation and current tectonics. Cordillera and adjacent craton temperatures are well constrained by geothermal heat flow, mantle tomography velocities, upper mantle xenoliths, and the effective elastic thickness, Te. Cordillera temperatures are very high and laterally uniform, explained by small scale convection beneath a thin lithosphere, 800–900 °C at the Moho, contrasted to 400–500 °C for the craton. The high temperatures provide an explanation for why the Cordillera has high elevation in spite of a generally thin crust, ∼33 km, in contrast to low elevation and thicker crust, 40–45 km, for the craton. The Cordillera is supported ∼1600 m by lithosphere thermal expansion. In the Cordillera only the upper crust has significant strength; Te ∼ 15 km, in contrast to over 60 km for the craton. The Cordillera is tectonically active because the lithosphere is sufficiently weak to be deformed by plate boundary and gravitational forces; the craton is too strong. The Canadian Cordillera results have led to new understandings of processes in backarcs globally. High backarc temperatures and weak lithospheres explain the tectonic activity over long geological times of mobile belts that make up about 20% of continents. They also have led to a new understanding of collision orogenic heat in terms of incorporation of already hot backarcs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".