MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148933774 · doi:10.1002/jgrb.50102

Subcontinental sinking slab remnants in a spherical geometry mantle model

2013· article· en· W2148933774 on OpenAlexaff
S. Quéré, J. P. Lowman, J. Arkani‐Hamed, J. H. Roberts, R. Moucha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlabGeologyMantle (geology)Transition zoneSlab windowSubductionLithosphereMantle wedgeGeophysicsMantle convectionSeismologyTectonicsOceanic crust

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparisons of the paleogeographic record with seismic tomography sections from the mantle below Asia indicate that detached slab remnants associated with a range of ages since subduction spanning roughly 100 Myr appear to occupy mid‐mantle depths at different sites. More than one explanation for the observed spectrum of ages at similar depths may be plausible. To identify key parameters controlling the sinking rate of a slab, we examine the effects of mantle viscosity, Rayleigh number, and spherical geometry, as well as the role of slab properties, such as strike width, depth extent at the time of slab detachment, and slab rheology. We model scenarios featuring detached mantle slabs in 3‐D calculations and conclude that the initial depth extent of a subducted slab segment is a key parameter determining the rate at which the slab sinks. We estimate that stiff slabs are able to occupy mid‐mantle depths for ages ranging from approximately 35 to 150 Myr, depending on the initial depth extent of the slab at the time of its detachment from the lithosphere. This age range results from the time that different slab fragments require to cross the viscosity interface at the upper mantle/lower mantle boundary. In cases featuring mature slabs where the lower section of the slab has penetrated the lower mantle prior to detachment, entrainment by the deep sinking segment helps the young upper mantle section of the slab cross into the lower mantle much more quickly than a slab segment initially confined to the upper 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207