MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995880541 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggs009

The role of thermal effect on mantle seismic anomalies under Laurentia and Fennoscandia from observations of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

2012· article· en· W1995880541 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-glacial reboundGeologyMantle (geology)Mantle convectionGeophysicsGlacial periodCrustal recyclingHotspot (geology)Seismic tomographySeismologyTectonicsSubductionPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An outstanding issue in the study of seismic tomography is the role of thermal versus non-thermal (e.g. compositional, partial melting) contribution to seismic velocity anomalies. Here we use observations of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), including global sea levels, observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission and GPS crustal uplift rates to show that thermal effect increases from about 65 per cent in the upper mantle to about 75 per cent in the shallow part of the lower mantle and to about 100 per cent in the deep lower mantle above the D′′ layer. This is consistent with temperature excess in the lower mantle from high core heating. However, the uncertainty increases from ∼10 per cent in the upper mantle to ∼40 per cent in the shallow lower mantle and is not well constrained in the deep lower mantle. The implication of large thermal contribution is that hot buoyant plumes can cause large viscosity reduction which may allow convection motion to occur easier even if the viscosity in the lower mantle is high.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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