MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mantle shear zones revisited: The connection between the cratons and mantle dynamics

2002· article· en· W2033791808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori A. Kennedy, James K. Russell, Maya Kopylova

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeological surveyGeologyColumbia universityCratonMantle (geology)Earth scienceGeophysicsPaleontologyMedia studiesSociologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Article| May 01, 2002 Mantle shear zones revisited: The connection between the cratons and mantle dynamics Lori A. Kennedy; Lori A. Kennedy 1Department of Earth and Ocean Science, Geological Sciences Building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar J. Kelly Russell; J. Kelly Russell 1Department of Earth and Ocean Science, Geological Sciences Building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Maya G. Kopylova Maya G. Kopylova 1Department of Earth and Ocean Science, Geological Sciences Building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Lori A. Kennedy 1Department of Earth and Ocean Science, Geological Sciences Building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada J. Kelly Russell 1Department of Earth and Ocean Science, Geological Sciences Building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada Maya G. Kopylova 1Department of Earth and Ocean Science, Geological Sciences Building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada Publisher: Geological Society of America Received: 10 Sep 2001 Revision Received: 21 Dec 2001 Accepted: 07 Jan 2002 First Online: 02 Jun 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-2682 Print ISSN: 0091-7613 Geological Society of America Geology (2002) 30 (5): 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<0419:MSZRTC>2.0.CO;2 Article history Received: 10 Sep 2001 Revision Received: 21 Dec 2001 Accepted: 07 Jan 2002 First Online: 02 Jun 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Lori A. Kennedy, J. Kelly Russell, Maya G. Kopylova; Mantle shear zones revisited: The connection between the cratons and mantle dynamics. Geology 2002;; 30 (5): 419–422. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<0419:MSZRTC>2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search Abstract New geodynamic models, based on teleseismic data sets, propose that the westward motion of the North and South American plates is driven by asthenospheric flow coupled to the overlying lithosphere. Implicit in these models is the existence of a zone of partial coupling at the boundary between the lithosphere and asthenosphere. We propose that porphyroclastic peridotite xenoliths from kimberlite are samples of deep-mantle shear zones. These samples are a direct manifestation of the mechanical coupling that arises from the drag applied to the lithosphere by the underlying asthenospheric flow. We postulate that the formation of shear zones at the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary is a quasisteady-state process attending plate movement beneath all cratons. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations57
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207