Variability and origin of seismic anisotropy across eastern Canada: Evidence from shear wave splitting measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measurements of seismic anisotropy in continental regions are frequently interpreted with respect to past tectonic processes, preserved in the lithosphere as “fossil” fabrics. Models of the present‐day sublithospheric flow (often using absolute plate motion as a proxy) are also used to explain the observations. Discriminating between these different sources of seismic anisotropy is particularly challenging beneath shields, whose thick (≥200 km) lithospheric roots may record a protracted history of deformation and strongly influence underlying mantle flow. Eastern Canada, where the geological record spans ∼3 Ga of Earth history, is an ideal region to address this issue. We use shear wave splitting measurements of core phases such as SKS to define upper mantle anisotropy using the orientation of the fast‐polarization direction ϕ and delay time δt between fast and slow shear wave arrivals. Comparison with structural trends in surface geology and aeromagnetic data helps to determine the contribution of fossil lithospheric fabrics to the anisotropy. We also assess the influence of sublithospheric mantle flow via flow directions derived from global geodynamic models. Fast‐polarization orientations are generally ENE‐WSW to ESE‐WNW across the region, but significant lateral variability in splitting parameters on a ≤100 km scale implies a lithospheric contribution to the results. Correlations with structural geologic and magnetic trends are not ubiquitous, however, nor are correlations with geodynamically predicted mantle flow directions. We therefore consider that the splitting parameters likely record a combination of the present‐day mantle flow and older lithospheric fabrics. Consideration of both sources of anisotropy is critical in shield regions when interpreting splitting observations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".