MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122589109 · doi:10.5194/se-3-121-2012

The fate of fluids released from subducting slab in northern Cascadia

2012· article· en· W2122589109 on OpenAlexaff
K. Ramachandran, R. D. Hyndman

Bibliographic record

VenueSolid Earth · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersUniversity of Tulsa
KeywordsForearcGeologySubductionMantle (geology)CrustOceanic crustContinental crustSeismologyKyanitePetrologyGeochemistryTectonicsMetamorphic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Large amounts of water carried down in subduction zones are driven upward into the overlying forearc upper mantle and crust as increasing temperatures and pressure dehydrate the subducting crust. Through seismic tomography velocities we show (a) the overlying forearc mantle in northern Cascadia is hydrated to serpentinite, and (b) there is low Poisson's ratio at the base of the forearc lower crust that may represent silica deposited from the rising fluids. From the velocities observed in the forearc mantle, the volume of serpentinite estimated is ∼30 %. This mechanically weak hydrated forearc region has important consequences in limits to great earthquakes and to collision tectonics. An approximately 10 km thick lower crustal layer of low Poisson's ratio (σ = 0.22) in the forearc is estimated to represent a maximum addition of ∼14 % by volume of quartz (σ = 0.09). If this quartz is removed from rising silica-saturated fluids over long times, it represents a significant addition of silica to the continental crust and an important contributor to its average composition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSolid EarthSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207