MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726858476 · doi:10.1002/2017gl074312

Mantle flow through a tear in the Nazca slab inferred from shear wave splitting

2017· article· en· W2726858476 on OpenAlexaff
Colton Lynner, Megan Anderson, D. E. Portner, S. L. Beck, Hersh Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersDivision of Earth SciencesNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaColorado CollegeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologySlabShear wave splittingMantle wedgeLithosphereMantle (geology)SeismologyGeophysicsSeismic anisotropySlab windowShear (geology)SubductionPetrologyTectonicsOceanic crust

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A tear in the subducting Nazca slab is located between the end of the Pampean flat slab and normally subducting oceanic lithosphere. Tomographic studies suggest mantle material flows through this opening. The best way to probe this hypothesis is through observations of seismic anisotropy, such as shear wave splitting. We examine patterns of shear wave splitting using data from two seismic deployments in Argentina that lay updip of the slab tear. We observe a simple pattern of plate‐motion‐parallel fast splitting directions, indicative of plate‐motion‐parallel mantle flow, beneath the majority of the stations. Our observed splitting contrasts previous observations to the north and south of the flat slab region. Since plate‐motion‐parallel splitting occurs only coincidentally with the slab tear, we propose mantle material flows through the opening resulting in Nazca plate‐motion‐parallel flow in both the subslab mantle and mantle wedge.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207