Upper mantle velocity‐temperature conversion and composition determined from seismic refraction and heat flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compile upper mantle P n velocities from seismic refraction/wide‐angle reflection surveys in the southern Superior Province of the Canadian Shield and compare them with temperatures at the Moho deduced from heat flow data. Calculated Moho temperatures and P n velocities correlate well, showing that in this area, P n depends primarily on temperature. The obtained values of ∂ V ( P n )/∂ T depend weakly on the assumed value of Moho heat flow and are on the order of −6.0 × 10 −4 ± 10% km s −1 K −1 , within the range of temperature derivatives obtained in laboratory studies of ultramafic rocks. Comparison between observed P n velocities and predicted values for several mineralogical models at Moho temperatures allows constraints on both the Moho heat flow and the shallow mantle composition. For all Moho heat flows, undepleted (clinopyroxene‐rich) mantle compositions do not allow a good fit to the data. For depleted mantle compositions, temperatures consistent with the observed P n velocities correspond to values of Moho heat flow larger than 12 mW m −2 . For our preferred Moho heat flow of 15 mW m −2 , the best fit mantle composition is slightly less depleted than models for average Archean subcontinental lithospheric mantle. This may be due to rejuvenation by melt‐related metasomatism during the Keweenawan rifting event. The similarity in P n − T conversion factors estimated from this empirical large‐scale geophysical study and those from laboratory data provides confidence in the absolute temperature values deduced from heat flow measurements and seismic studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".