Subducting slabs: Jellyfishes in the Earth's mantle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constantly improving resolution of geophysical data, seismic tomography and seismicity in particular, shows that the lithosphere does not subduct as a slab of uniform thickness but is rather thinned in the upper mantle and thickened around the transition zone between the upper and lower mantle. This observation has traditionally been interpreted as evidence for the buckling and piling of slabs at the boundary between the upper and lower mantle, where a strong contrast in viscosity may exist and cause resistance to the penetration of slabs into the lower mantle. The distribution and character of seismicity reveal, however, that slabs undergo vertical extension in the upper mantle and compression near the transition zone. In this paper, we demonstrate that during the subduction process, the shape of low viscosity slabs (1 to 100 times more viscous than the surrounding mantle) evolves toward an inverted plume shape that we coin jellyfish. Results of a 3D numerical model show that the leading tip of slabs deform toward a rounded head skirted by lateral tentacles that emerge from the sides of the jellyfish head. The head is linked to the body of the subducting slab by a thin tail. A complete parametric study reveals that subducting slabs may achieve a variety of shapes, in good agreement with the diversity of natural slab shapes evidenced by seismic tomography. Our work also suggests that the slab to mantle viscosity ratio in the Earth is most likely to be lower than 100. However, the sensitivity of slab shapes to upper and lower mantle viscosities and densities, which remain poorly constrained by independent evidence, precludes any systematic deciphering of the observations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".