MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028635687 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017754

The influence of phase boundary deflection on velocity anomalies of stagnant slabs in the transition zone

2003· article· en· W2028635687 on OpenAlexaff
Kit Chambers, R. N. Pysklywec

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySubductionSlabTransition zoneSlab windowDiscontinuity (linguistics)GeophysicsDeflection (physics)Mantle wedgeMantle (geology)Seismic tomographySeismologyMantle convectionMechanicsPhysicsTectonicsOceanic crustOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the behavior of subducted slabs in the mantle transition zone remains uncertain, images from seismic tomography provide insight into a rather complex geodynamic evolution of slabs in this region. Using a numerical mantle convection model we consider in more detail the dynamics of subducted slabs around an endothermic phase change at 660 km depth. The time‐dependent temperature fields from the flow simulation are used to derive perturbations from a radially stratified seismic velocity model. We find that the positive velocity anomalies of the cold descending slabs may be significantly decreased at the phase change owing to the slab‐induced downward phase boundary deflection and associated velocity discontinuity across the boundary. The slab may be completely or partially rendered seismically undetectable, depending on the amount of phase boundary deflection. The results have implications for the seismic interpretation of the dynamics of subducted slabs interacting with a phase transition.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207