MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893438849 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079406

Upper Mantle Seismic Structure of Alaska From Rayleigh and <i>S</i> Wave Tomography

2018· article· en· W2893438849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chengxin Jiang, Brandon Schmandt, Kevin M. Ward, Fan‐Chi Lin, L. L. Worthington

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologySeismologySubductionLithosphereTerraneIntraplate earthquakeMantle (geology)Seismic tomographyCrustVolcanoRayleigh waveSlabGeophysicsTectonicsSurface wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mantle shear velocity (Vs) structure beneath the Transportable Array (TA) in Alaska and northwestern Canada is imaged by joint inversion of Rayleigh wave dispersion and teleseismic S wave travel times. The study connects previously unsampled parts of northern and western Alaska with portions of southern Alaska imaged with earlier seismic arrays. The new Vs tomography shows contrasting lithospheric structure in the plate interior with lower Vs shallow upper mantle indicative of thinner thermal lithosphere south of the Brooks Range and along the transform margin. Higher Vs down to ~200 km beneath the Brooks Range and northern coast is consistent with the presence of a cold stable lithospheric root that may help guide intraplate deformation to the south. In the subduction‐to‐transform transition, a potential slab fragment is imaged beneath the Wrangell volcanic field where modern subduction has slowed due to the thick buoyant crust of the Yakutat terrane.

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)0.000
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations70
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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