MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061749031 · doi:10.1029/1999gl008474

Diffusion creep of fine‐grained garnetite: Implications for the flow strength of subducting slabs

2000· article· en· W2061749031 on OpenAlexaff
Zichao Wang, Shaocheng Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepDiffusion creepGeologyDiffusionGrain boundary diffusion coefficientGrain boundaryGrain Boundary SlidingGrain sizeLithosphereMaterials scienceMineralogyThermodynamicsComposite materialMicrostructureSeismologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creep experiments were performed on synthetic fine‐grained garnetite to investigate the flow strength of the Earth's subducting slabs. Experiments were conducted at temperatures (T) of 1373–1543 K and total pressure (P) of 0.1 MPa in controlled atmospheres of fO2 =10−17‐10–8 MPa. The mechanical data indicate a grain‐size sensitive diffusion flow and the creep behavior can be described by an equation of the form: where T in Kelvin, d in meter, σ and fO2 in MPa. Based on the diffusivities (D) calculated from creep and diffusion experiments, we proposed that grain boundary diffusion is the dominant mechanism for high temperature creep of the fine‐grained garnetite. Normalized creep strength of the garnetite is found to be comparable to those of feldspar and olivine in diffusion creep regime, suggesting that garnetite may not form a strong layer in the subducted oceanic lithosphere if it deforms by grain boundary diffusion creep.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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