MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983966359 · doi:10.1029/2004eo500002

Is there a mantle plume below Italy?

2004· article· en· W1983966359 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMagmatismGeologyMantle plumeGeochemistryMantle (geology)Igneous rockPlumeUpwellingSubductionEarth scienceLithosphereTectonicsPaleontologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some of the most diverse igneous rocks found on Earth occur along the length of Italy and in many of the islands in the southeastern Tyrrhenian Sea, all the result of Cenozoic magmatism. Magmas extremely rich in alkalis, particularly potassium, and many undersaturated with respect to silica, were erupted, as well as others of calc‐alkalic affinity (see legend in Figure 1). Their origin has been the subject of heated debate, and there is still no general consensus about how they formed. Most attribute them to subduction‐related processes (see Beccaluva et al. [2004] for a review); others consider them to be the result of within‐plate magmatism [e.g., Vollmer , 1976; Lauecchia and Stoppa , 1996]. Still others consider magmatism the result of a deep, mantle upwelling within a slab window coupled with mixing between isotopically different reservoirs [ Gasperini et al., 2002].

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.006

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.175 · 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