Near‐surface diagnostics of dripping or delaminating lithosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In various geological regions, it has been postulated that the mantle lithosphere has been thinned or completely removed. Two of the primary removal mechanisms that have been put forward include: (1) delamination, a wholesale peeling away of a coherent block of the mantle lithosphere, and (2) lithospheric “dripping,” viscous Rayleigh‐Taylor instability of the mantle lithosphere. Using computational models, we investigate several near‐surface observables to determine if these may be diagnostic of either (often ambiguous) removal mechanism. Surface topography associated with delamination has a broad region of uplift above the lithospheric gap and a localized and mobile zone of subsidence at the delaminating hinge. With dripping lithosphere, the topographic expression is symmetric and fixed above the downwelling. Delamination of mantle lithosphere is more efficient than dripping for thermal heating of the crust; the onset is more rapid and the elevated temperatures persist longer. The resultant crustal P‐T‐t paths show modest pressure variations and high temperature increases with large‐scale delamination or dripping. Delamination also causes contraction directly above the (migrating) hinge and distal extension. Dripping lithosphere induces superimposed contraction and extension above and symmetric about the viscous instability. For all the observables, if only a portion of the mantle lithosphere is removed by viscous instability (delamination inherently removes all of the mantle lithosphere), the differences between the two removal mechanisms are even more pronounced. With only partial removal of the mantle lithosphere, uppermost mantle lithosphere remains well coupled to the crust, leading to lower surface temperature variations and broad zones of crustal deformation/thickening.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".