MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3018707302 · doi:10.1029/2020gl086950

Efficient Carbon Recycling at the Central‐Northern Lesser Antilles Arc: Implications to Deep Carbon Recycling in Global Subduction Zones

2020· article· en· W3018707302 on OpenAlexaff
Kan Li, Long Li, Cyril Aubaud, Karlis Muehlenbachs

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForearcSubductionGeologyCarbon fibersSlabMantle (geology)Carbon cycleCrustOceanic crustArc (geometry)GeochemistryEarth scienceSeismologyPaleontologyTectonicsMaterials scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carbon recycling efficiency of arc (CREA) is an important parameter to assess the recycling of slab carbon into Earth's deep interior. Although previous studies observed variable degrees of recycled slab carbon at global arcs, the CREA value of any individual subduction zone has not been obtained due to the loose constraints on carbon budget in altered oceanic crust (AOC). Here, through estimates of carbon input by both sediments and AOC at DSDP Site 543 and recycled carbon output from major volcanoes in the Central‐Northern Lesser Antilles, we show an extremely efficient carbon recycling case, with the CREA value reaching 100±27%. Nearly complete slab carbon release at sub‐arc depth implies little carbon has been lost in the forearc region or subducted into the deep mantle in this subduction zone. Our results highlight strongly variable CREA on a global scale, which must be considered in the modeling of global deep carbon cycle.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→