MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tomography of core-mantle boundary and lowermost mantle coupled by geodynamics

2012· article· en· W2099585999 on OpenAlexaff
G. Soldati, Lapo Boschi, A. M. Forte

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeodynamicsSeismic tomographyGeologyMantle (geology)Core–mantle boundaryGeophysicsMantle convectionTomographySeismic anisotropyLithosphereSeismologyTectonicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an innovative approach to mapping CMB topography from seismic P-wave traveltime inversions: instead of treating mantle velocity and CMB topography as independent parameters, as has been done so far, we account for their coupling by mantle flow, as formulated by Forte & Peltier. This approach rests on the assumption that P data are sufficiently sensitive to thermal heterogeneity, and that compositional heterogeneity, albeit important in localized regions of the mantle (e.g. within the D″ region), is not sufficiently strong to govern the pattern of mantle-wide convection and hence the CMB topography. The resulting tomographic maps of CMB topography are physically sound, and they resolve the known discrepancy between images obtained from classic tomography on the basis of core-reflected and core-refracted seismic phases. Since the coefficients of mantle velocity structure are the only free parameters of the inversion, this joint tomography–geodynamics approach reduces the number of parameters; nevertheless the corresponding mantle models fit the seismic data as well as the purely seismic ones.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207