Thermal regime of the lithosphere in the Canadian ShieldThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme<i>Lithoprobe — parameters, processes, and the evolution of a continent</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geothermal studies were conducted within the framework of Lithoprobe to systematically document variations of heat flow and surface heat production in the major geological provinces of the Canadian Shield. One of the main conclusions is that in the Shield the variations in surface heat flow are dominated by the crustal heat generation. Horizontal variations in mantle heat flow are too small to be resolved by heat flow measurements. Different methods constrain the mantle heat flow to be in the range of 12–18 mW·m–2. Most of the heat flow anomalies (high and low) are due to variations in crustal composition and structure. The vertical distribution of radioelements is characterized by a differentiation index (DI) that measures the ratio of the surface to the average crustal heat generation in a province. Determination of mantle temperatures requires the knowledge of both the surface heat flow and DI. Mantle temperatures increase with an increase in surface heat flow but decrease with an increase in DI. Stabilization of the crust is achieved by crustal differentiation that results in decreasing temperatures in the lower crust. Present mantle temperatures inferred from xenolith studies and variations in mantle seismic P-wave velocity (Pn) from seismic refraction surveys are consistent with geotherms calculated from heat flow. These results emphasize that deep lithospheric temperatures do not always increase with an increase in the surface heat flow. The dense data coverage that has been achieved in the Canadian Shield allows some discrimination between temperature and composition effects on seismic velocities in the lithospheric mantle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".