MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026823674 · doi:10.1029/2008eo110011

Mantle Plumes: A Multidisciplinary Approach

2008· article· en· W2026823674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kent C. Condie

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle plumeMantle (geology)GeologyHotspot (geology)VolcanoPlumeFlood basaltVolcanismLithosphereBuoyancyBasaltSeamountPlate tectonicsGeophysicsMantle wedgeMantle convectionTransition zonePetrologyGeochemistryTectonicsSeismologyMechanicsMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mantle plumes are blobs of relatively hot, low‐density mantle that because of their buoyancy, rise through the surrounding mantle. The existence of mantle plumes in the Earth was first suggested in 1963 by J. Tuzo Wilson at the University of Toronto as an explanation of oceanic island chains, such as the Hawaiian and Emperor volcanic chains, which change progressively in age along the chain. Wilson proposed that as lithospheric plates move over fixed hot spots (the mantle plumes), volcanism is recorded as a linear array of volcanic seamounts and islands parallel to the direction the plate is moving. In 1971, W. Jason Morgan at Princeton University suggested that flood basalts were formed by the melting of plume heads, whereas hot spot volcanic chains were derived from partial melting of plume tails. He also showed that closely spaced hot spots on the same plate had not moved significantly relative to each other, and he suggested this was evidence that the plumes had come from the core‐mantle boundary.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207