MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998601546 · doi:10.1029/2005jb004024

The thermal structure of subduction zone back arcs

2006· article· en· W1998601546 on OpenAlexaff
Claire A. Currie, R. D. Hyndman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of VictoriaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubductionGeologyMantle (geology)LithosphereGeophysicsVolcanic arcBack-arc basinMantle wedgeHotspot (geology)SlabMantle convectionSeismologyPlate tectonicsThermalConvectionTectonicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well recognized that active arc volcanism at nearly all subduction zones requires temperatures greater than 1200°C in the subarc mantle, despite the underthrusting cool subducting plate. In this study, we document evidence that high upper mantle temperatures are not restricted to the arc but usually extend for several hundred kilometers across the back arc, even in areas that have not undergone extension. For 10 circum‐Pacific back arcs where there has been no significant recent extension, we have compiled observational constraints on the thermal structure using a number of independent indicators of mantle temperature, including surface heat flow, seismic velocity, and xenolith thermobarometry. The observations indicate uniformly high temperatures in the shallow mantle and a thin lithosphere (1200°C at ∼60 km depth) over back‐arc widths of 250 to >900 km. Similar high temperatures are inferred for extensional back arcs of the western Pacific and southern Europe, but the thermal structures are complicated by extension and spreading. A broad hot back arc may be a fundamental characteristic of a subduction zone that places important constraints on back‐arc mantle dynamics. In particular, the thermal structure predicted for slab‐driven corner flow is inconsistent with the observed uniformly high back‐arc temperatures. We favor the alternate model that heat is rapidly carried upward from depth by vigorous thermal convection in the back‐arc upper mantle. Such convection may be promoted by low viscosities, resulting from hydration by fluids from the subducting plate. Following subduction termination, we find that the high temperatures decay over a timescale of about 300 Myr.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations413
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207