MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056262142 · doi:10.1029/2007gl029463

On the relative importance of mineral phase transitions and viscosity stratification in controlling the sinking rates of detached slab remnants

2007· article· en· W2056262142 on OpenAlexaff
M. H. Shahnas, Gary T. Jarvis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle (geology)SlabStratification (seeds)GeologyViscosityTransition zonePhase boundaryConvectionGeophysicsMantle convectionMechanicsMineralogyThermodynamicsPhase (matter)PhysicsSubductionSeismologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employ a two‐dimensional control‐volume model of convection in a cylindrical shell to study sinking rates of cold parcels of material in the Earth's mantle. Our model uses periodic boundary conditions, at 0 and 360 degrees, to eliminate side‐wall effects and includes mineral phase transitions at 410 km and 660 km depths and a depth‐dependent viscosity. We compare the rates of sinking of cold material with and without phase boundaries and with and without viscosity increases with depth. When the viscosity increase is sufficiently large we find the sinking rate is relatively insensitive to the presence or absence of phase boundaries; the effects of viscosity dominate. If recent estimates of large viscosity increases in the lower mantle are correct, our model could account for mid‐mantle slab remnants of Jurassic age independent of the existence of phase transition boundaries in the 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 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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