MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105092996 · doi:10.1029/2007gl031059

Asthenospheric upwelling, oceanic slab retreat, and exhumation of UHP mantle rocks: Insights from Greater Antilles

2007· article· en· W2105092996 on OpenAlexaff
Weronika Gorczyk, Stéphane Guillot, Taras Gerya, Kéiko Hattori

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsGeologySubductionMantle (geology)UpwellingAsthenosphereMantle wedgeSlabOceanic crustGeochemistryPeridotitePetrologyGeophysicsSeismologyOceanographyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exhumation of garnet‐bearing peridotites has been associated with low density continental rocks. This association does not explain the occurrence of garnet‐bearing peridotites in the oceanic subduction zone of the Greater Antilles in Hispaniola. We use numerical models of intra‐oceanic subduction to explain exhumation of garnet peridotites without involvement of buoyant continental crust. We demonstrate that rheological weakening of the mantle wedge takes place due to its strong hydration during subduction of serpentinized slow spreading ridge. This weakening triggers upwelling of the hydrated peridotites and partially molten peridotites followed by upwelling of hot asthenosphere and subsequent retreat of the subducting slab. According to numerical modelling of P‐T paths this process can explain exhumation of UHP (4GPa) rocks in an intra‐oceanic setting.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations101
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207