MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520291634

Variations in Grain Size and Viscosity Based on Vacancy Diffusion in Minerals, Seismic Tomography and Geodynamically Inferred Mantle Rheology

2015· article· en· W2520291634 on OpenAlexaff
P. Glišović, A. M. Forte, M. W. Ammann

Bibliographic record

Venue2015 AGU Fall Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle (geology)Grain sizeGeologyRheologyViscosityArrhenius equationSeismic tomographyDiffusion creepMineralogyGeophysicsThermodynamicsMaterials scienceGrain boundaryMicrostructurePhysicsChemistryActivation energyComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of grain size on mantle viscosity is comparable to that of temperature and pressure. The current 3-D distribution of grain size in the mantle is, however, unknown. To explore the possible variability of grain size, we use the following: geodynamic inferences of effective viscosity, vacancy diffusion rates in upper mantle minerals and perovskite in the lower mantle, lateral variations in temperature derived from seismic images, and different geotherms. An important outcome of this modeling is a new mapping of lateral viscosity variations throughout the mantle. The corresponding 3-D variations in grain size are characterized by 2 orders of magnitude changes. We find a correlation between grain size variability in the mantle and absolute viscosity changes with depth. Our findings suggest that the traditional assumption of Arrhenius temperature dependence for vacancy diffusion in the lower mantle is not sufficient to constrain the deformation mechanisms that determine its effective bulk viscosity.

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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2015 AGU Fall MeetingSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207