A hydrologic model for the uppermost oceanic crust constrained by temperature estimates from carbonate minerals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrologic models of the oceanic crust commonly assume that the uppermost igneous extrusive layer of the aquifer is thermally well mixed, although this assumption has not been rigorously tested. Here, the assumption of a thermally well‐mixed aquifer is tested against the geological record using O isotope‐derived crystallization temperatures of carbonates in the lavas as a record of the temperatures experienced by the aquifer. It is found that carbonate formation temperatures are higher than can be explained by a model of outcrop‐to‐outcrop flow in a well‐mixed aquifer at four of the seven drilling locations analyzed. A poorly mixed aquifer is developed to further explore the crustal hydrology at these locations. Relative to a well‐mixed aquifer, a poorly mixed aquifer can achieve higher average temperatures, develops larger lateral pressure gradients driving flow, and requires a lower permeability to achieve a given lateral fluid flux. O isotope data from most of the carbonate samples analyzed are consistent with temperatures achievable in a poorly mixed aquifer; those samples which are not consistent can be explained by plausible special circumstances (such as formation at a discharge zone, where ascending fluid may warm the uppermost aquifer).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".