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 OpenAlexaff
Patrick Wu, Hansheng Wang, Holger Steffen

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
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

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

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207