MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033654543 · doi:10.1130/ges02213.1

Advances in the thermal and petrologic modeling of subduction zones

2020· article· en· W3033654543 on OpenAlexaff
Simon M. Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosphere · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySubductionMantle wedgeMantle (geology)GeophysicsSlabCrustEclogiteMetamorphic rockCrustal recyclingOceanic crustTransition zonePetrologyForearcThermalEclogitizationSeismologyContinental crustTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the two decades since Subduction: Top to Bottom was published in 1996, improved analytical and numerical thermal-petrologic models of subduction zones have been constructed and evaluated against new seismological and geological observations. Advances in thermal modeling include a range of new approaches to incorporating shear (frictional, viscous) heating along the subduction interface and to simulating induced flow in the mantle wedge. Forearc heat-flux measurements constrain the apparent coefficient of friction (μ′) along the plate interface to <∼0.1, but the extent to which μ′ may vary between subduction zones remains challenging to discern owing to scatter in the heat-flux measurements and uncertainties in the magnitude and distribution of radiogenic heat production in the overriding crust. Flow in the mantle wedge and the resulting thermal structure depend on the rheology of variably hydrated mantle rocks and the depth at which the subducting slab becomes coupled to the overlying mantle wedge. Advances in petrologic modeling include the incorporation of sophisticated thermodynamic software packages into thermal models and the prediction of seismic velocities from mineralogic and petrologic models. Current thermal-petrologic models show very good agreement between the predicted location of metamorphic dehydration reactions and observed intermediate-depth earthquakes, and between the predicted location of the basalt-to-eclogite transition in subducting oceanic crust and observed landward-dipping, low-seismic-velocity layers. Exhumed high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic rocks provide insight into subduction-zone temperatures, but important thermal parameters (e.g., convergence rate) are not well constrained, and metamorphic rocks exposed at the surface today may reflect relatively warm conditions in the past associated with subduction initiation or ridge subduction. We can anticipate additional advances in our understanding of subduction zones as a result of further testing of model predictions against geologic and geophysical observations, and of evaluating the importance of advective processes, such as diapirism and subduction-channel flow, that are not captured in hybrid kinematic-dynamic models of subduction zones but are observed in fully dynamical models under certain conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosphereSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207