Mantle flow uplift of western Anatolia and the Aegean: Interpretations from geophysical analyses and geodynamic modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Western Anatolian and Aegean region demonstrates a complex geologic history of horizontal and vertical tectonics. Active normal faulting and exhumation zones indicate that Western Anatolia has experienced significant extension since the Oligocene‐Early Miocene (∼30 Ma). Our geophysical analyses demonstrate that the region is also uplifted relative to an elevation that would be expected given an isostatic response to the lithosphere structure. Namely, topography “residuals” indicate a residual uplift of about 1500 m over ∼200 km sections of Western Anatolia and the Aegean. Admittance functions between free‐air gravity and topography indicate that the regional topography is isostatically uncompensated and as it approaches ∼50 mGal/km at the longest wavelengths, the uncompensated topography is likely owing to an underlying mantle flow component. Using forward geodynamic modelling we consider an idealized section of Western Anatolian lithosphere based on tomographic inversions and examine the magnitude and pattern of surface topography to reconcile with the geophysical observables. The models consistently show a plateau‐type uplift (and horizontal extension) through Western Anatolia with an amplitude and wavelength consistent with the residual topography calculations. Together, the geophysical analyses and modelling provide independent quantitative evidence that the thin Anatolian‐Aegean lithosphere is being buoyed upwards by underlying mantle flow. The mantle flow may be associated with active lithosphere delamination beneath the region; a process that would also explain the ongoing crustal extension.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".