MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1949554075 · doi:10.1002/2015gl065018

Mantle‐driven uplift of Hangai Dome: New seismic constraints from adjoint tomography

2015· article· en· W1949554075 on OpenAlexafffund
Min Chen, Fenglin Niu, Qinya Liu, Jeroen Tromp

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyUpwellingMantle (geology)Seismic tomographyLithosphereSeismologyGeophysicsMantle wedgePartial meltingCrustPetrologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The origin of Hangai Dome, an unusual large‐scale, high‐elevation low‐relief landform in central Mongolia, remains enigmatic partly due to lack of constraints on its underlying seismic structure. Using adjoint tomography—a full waveform tomographic technique—and a large seismic waveform data set in East Asia, we discover beneath the dome a deep low shear wave speed (low‐V) conduit indicating a slightly warmer (54 K to 127 K) upwelling from the transition zone. This upwelling is spatially linked to a broader uppermost mantle low‐V region underlying the dome. Further observations of high compressional to shear wave speed ratios and positive radial anisotropy in the low‐V region suggest partial melting and horizontal melt transport. We propose that the mantle upwelling induced decompression melting in the uppermost mantle and that excess heat associated with melt transport modified the lithosphere that isostatically compensates the surface uplift at upper mantle depths (>80 km).

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations75
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207