Dynamics of intraoceanic subduction initiation: 2. Suprasubduction zone ophiolite formation and metamorphic sole exhumation in context of absolute plate motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analyzing subduction initiation is key for understanding the coupling between plate tectonics and the underlying mantle. Here we focus on suprasubduction zone (SSZ) ophiolites and how their formation links to intraoceanic subduction initiation in an absolute plate motion frame. SSZ ophiolites form the majority of exposed oceanic lithosphere fragments and are widely recognized to have formed during intraoceanic subduction initiation. Structural, petrological, geochemical, and plate kinematic constraints on their kinematic evolution show that SSZ crust forms at fore‐arc spreading centers at the expense of a mantle wedge, thereby flattening the nascent slab. This leads to the typical inverted pressure gradients found in metamorphic soles that form at the subduction plate contact below and during SSZ crust crystallization. Former spreading centers are preserved in forearcs when subduction initiates along transform faults or off‐ridge oceanic detachments. We show how these are reactivated when subduction initiates in the absolute plate motion direction of the inverting weakness zone. Upon inception of slab pull due to, e.g., eclogitization, the sole is separated from the slab, remains welded to the thinned overriding plate lithosphere, and can become intruded by mafic dikes upon asthenospheric influx into the mantle wedge. We propound that most ophiolites thus formed under special geodynamic circumstances and may not be representative of normal oceanic crust. Our study highlights how far‐field geodynamic processes and absolute plate motions may force intraoceanic subduction initiation as key toward advancing our understanding of the entire plate tectonic cycle.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".