Temperatures in ambient mantle and plumes: Constraints from basalts, picrites, and komatiites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several methods have been developed to assess the thermal state of the mantle below oceanic ridges, islands, and plateaus, on the basis of the petrology and geochemistry of erupted lavas. One leads to the conclusion that mantle potential temperature (i.e., T P ) of ambient mantle below oceanic ridges is 1430°C, the same as Hawaii. Another has ridges with a large range in ambient mantle potential temperature (i.e., T P = 1300–1570°C), comparable in some cases to hot spots (Klein and Langmuir, 1987; Langmuir et al., 1992). A third has uniformly low temperatures for ambient mantle below ridges, ∼1300°C, with localized 250°C anomalies associated with mantle plumes. All methods involve assumptions and uncertainties that we critically evaluate. A new evaluation is made of parental magma compositions that would crystallize olivines with the maximum forsterite contents observed in lava flows. These are generally in good agreement with primary magma compositions calculated using the mass balance method of Herzberg and O'Hara (2002), and differences reflect the well‐known effects of fractional crystallization. Results of primary magma compositions we obtain for mid‐ocean ridge basalts and various oceanic islands and plateaus generally favor the third type of model but with ambient mantle potential temperatures in the range 1280–1400°C and thermal anomalies that can be 200–300°C above this background. Our results are consistent with the plume model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".