MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410565284 · doi:10.1038/srep19167

Fractal density and singularity analysis of heat flow over ocean ridges

2016· article· en· W2410565284 on OpenAlexaff
C QIUMING

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractalSingularityGeologyFlow (mathematics)Heat flowStatistical physicsGeometryMechanicsMeteorologyPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisThermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peak heat flow occurs at mid-ocean ridges and decreases with the age of the oceanic lithosphere. Several plate models, including the Parsons and Sclater (PSM) model, Global Depth and Heat (GDH1) model and Constant Heat flow Applied on the Bottom Lithospheric Isotherm (CHABLIS) model, have been used to predict heat flow in the ocean lithosphere. The discrepancy between the predicted and measured heat flow in the younger lithosphere (i.e. younger than 55 Myr) influenced by local hydrothermal circulation has been used to estimate hydrothermal heat flux and investigate hydrothermal processes. We can modify the cooling models by substituting the ordinary mass density of lithosphere by fractal density with singularity. This new model provides a modified solution to fit the observed heat flow data used in other models in the literature throughout the age range. This model significantly improves the results for prediction of heat flow that were obtained using the PSM, GDH1 and CHABLIS models. Furthermore, the heat flow model does not exhibit special characteristics around any particular age of lithosphere. This raises a fundamental question about the existence of a "sealing" age and accordingly the hydrothermal flux estimation based on the cooling models.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207