Impact of regional mantle flow on subducting plate geometry and interplate stress: insights from physical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical models of subduction investigate the impact of regional mantle flow on the structure of the subducted slab and deformation of the downgoing and overriding plates. The initial mantle flow direction beneath the overriding plate can be horizontal or vertical, depending on its location with respect to the asthenospheric flow field. Imposed mantle flow produces either over or underpressure on the lower surface of the slab depending on the initial mantle flow pattern (horizontal or vertical, respectively). Overpressure promotes shallow dip subduction while underpressure tends to steepen the slab. Horizontal mantle flow with rates of 1–10 cm yr−1 provides sufficient overpressure on a dense subducting lithosphere to obtain a subduction angle of ∼60°, while the same lithospheric slab sinks vertically when no flow is imposed. Vertical drag force (due to downward mantle flow) exerted on a slab can result in steep subduction if the slab is neutrally buoyant but fails to produce steep subduction of buoyant oceanic lithosphere. The strain regime in the overriding plate due to the asthenospheric drag force depends largely on slab geometry. When the slab dip is steeper than the interplate zone, the drag force produces negative additional normal stress on the interplate zone and tensile horizontal stress in the overriding plate. When the slab dip is shallower than the interplate zone, an additional positive normal stress is produced on the interplate zone and the overriding plate experiences additional horizontal compressive stress. However, the impact of the mantle drag force on interplate pressure is small compared to the influence of the slab pull force since these stress variations can only be observed when the slab is dense and interplate pressure is low.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".