Dynamic cause of marginal lithospheric thinning and implications for craton destruction: a comparison of the North China, Superior, and Yilgarn cratons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a comparative tectonic analysis of the North China Craton (NCC), which has lost parts of its root, with the Yilgarn and Superior cratons, which preserve their roots. We compare the geophysical structure and tectonic histories of these cratons to search for reasons why some cratons lose their roots, while others retain them. Based on the comparison and analysis of geological, geophysical, and geochemical data, it is clear that the lithospheric thinning beneath craton margins is a common phenomenon, which may be caused by convergence between plates. However, craton destruction is not always accompanied by lithospheric thinning, except for cratons that suffered subduction and collision from multiple sides. The Western Block (also known as the Ordos Block) of the NCC, Yilgarn and Superior cratons have not experienced craton destruction; the common ground among them is that they are surrounded by weak zones (e.g., mobile belts or orogens) that sheltered the cratons from deformation, which contributes greatly to the long-term stability of the craton. Subduction polarity controlled the water released by the subducting plate, and if subducting plates dip underneath the craton, they release water that hydroweakens the overlying mantle, and makes it easy for delamination or sub-continental lithospheric mantle erosion to take place in the interior of the craton. Thus, subduction polarity during convergence events is an important element in determing whether a craton retains or loses its root.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".