MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1930767292 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2013-0115

Plume–plate interaction

2014· article· en· W1930767292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin Burke, J. M. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeGeologyPlate tectonicsMantle plumePanacheHotspot (geology)GeophysicsMeteorologyPaleontologyGeographyLithosphereTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having discerned competition among vigorous plumes on the 108 year timescale, Tuzo Wilson suggested that plumes control plate behavior and are “the mainsprings of geological history”. Here we revisit that idea by discussing selected examples of plume–plate interaction and find that modern observational, instrumental, computational, and modeling capabilities are revealing a wonderful variety and complexity in plume–plate interaction. The degree to which plumes control plate behavior is poorly constrained. However, the examples we consider suggest complex interactions between plumes and plates that, during the past 70 million years, have led to separate episodes of extreme plate acceleration and near complete cessation of plate motion in the deep mantle reference frame. The recognition of contrasting convective behavior within two newly distinguished “Active Plume Heads”, both reaching to depths of ∼1200 km, one beneath Hawaii and the other between Iceland and Norway, represent new opportunities in studying plume–plate interaction. Wilson’s suggestion continues to inspire stimulating questions for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207