MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Models of large-scale viscous flow in the Earth's mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations

2006· article· en· W2141008939 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard Steinberger, Arthur R. Calderwood

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoidMantle (geology)GeologyGeophysicsLithosphereMantle convectionTransition zoneViscosityHeat fluxPhysicsMechanicsThermodynamicsHeat transferTectonicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling the geoid has been a widely used and successful approach in constraining flow and viscosity in the Earth's mantle. However, details of the viscosity structure cannot be tightly constrained with this approach. Here, radial viscosity variations in four to five mantle layers (lithosphere, upper mantle, one to two transition zone layers, lower mantle) are computed with the aid of independent mineral physics results. A density model is obtained by converting s-wave anomalies from seismic tomography to density anomalies. Assuming both are of thermal origin, conversion factors are computed based on mineral physics results. From the density and viscosity model, a model of mantle flow, and the resulting geoid and radial heat flux profile are computed. Absolute viscosity values in the mantle layers are treated as free parameters and determined by minimizing a misfit function, which considers fit to geoid, ‘Haskell average’ determined from post-glacial rebound and the radial heat flux profile and penalizes if at some depth computed heat flux exceeds the estimated mantle heat flux 33 TW. Typically, optimized models do not exceed this value by more than about 20 per cent and fit the Haskell average well. Viscosity profiles obtained show a characteristic hump in the lower mantle, with maximum viscosities of about 1023 Pa s just above the D″ layer— several hundred to about 1000 times the lowest viscosities in the upper mantle. This viscosity contrast is several times higher than what is inferred when a constant lower mantle viscosity is assumed. The geoid variance reduction obtained is up to about 80 per cent—similar to previous results. However, because of the use of mineral physics constraints, a rather small number of free model parameters is required, and at the same time, a reasonable heat flux profile is obtained. Results are best when the lowest viscosities occur in the transition zone. When viscosity is lowest in the asthenosphere, variance reduction is about 70–75 per cent. Best results were obtained with a viscous lithosphere with a few times 1022 Pa s. The optimized models yield a core-mantle boundary excess ellipticity several times higher than observed, possibly indicating that radial stresses are partly compensated due to non-thermal lateral variations within the lowermost mantle.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations332
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207