Insights from geodynamical modeling on possible fates of continental mantle lithosphere: collision, removal, and overturnThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme <i>Lithoprobe — parameters, processes, and the evolution of a continent</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geodynamic modeling demonstrates various modes of behaviour of the tectonically active continental mantle lithosphere. At continental collision, mantle lithosphere below thickening crust can be accommodated by mixed subduction-like consumption and viscous drip-like instability, depending on the material rheology, temperature, and convergence velocity. Late-stage slab steepening, dual-sided and ablative consumption, and breakoff can occur as the buoyant crust resists subduction. Removal of accreted crust by erosion can modify how even the deepest portions of the mantle lithosphere evolves during contraction. When gravitational forcing rather than plate shortening dominates, mantle lithosphere may be removed through viscous dripping-like instability or delamination. The removal induces crustal heating, modified topography, and deformation, but distinctive styles of these develop depending on whether mantle lithosphere delaminates or drips. With a modified density stratification postulated for the Archean, relatively buoyant mantle lithosphere may undergo an in-situ overturn when triggered by unstable dense eclogite and basal traction. This causes a pulse of rapid crustal heating as hot lowermost lithosphere is brought into contact with the base of the crust. As an interpretive tool, the geodynamic experiments illustrate some of the dynamically feasible modes of behaviour and controlling parameters for the continental mantle lithosphere in ancient to modern tectonic environments.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".