Insights Into the Origins and Compositions of Mantle Plumes: A Comparison of Galápagos and Hawai'i
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Galápagos and Hawai'i archipelagos are formed by mantle plumes originating at the large low shear velocity province (LLSVP) boundary. We report new high‐precision Pb, Sr, Nd, and Hf isotopic analyses on 83 Galápagos samples and compare them with those of Hawai'i. The data confirm that like Hawai'i, Galápagos is a bilaterally asymmetric plume whose compositional boundary trends NW‐SE. On their northeast sides, the plumes share a common source, Pacific lower mantle, whose intermediate isotopic signature may be common to many plumes. The Hawaiian and Galápagos plumes' southwestern sides are anchored in the Pacific LLSVP and are compositionally distinct; in Hawai'i, Loa trend lavas reflect contributions from the EM1 mantle end‐member, whereas in Galápagos, HIMU is dominant, suggesting that the Pacific LLSVP is compositionally heterogeneous and includes different types of recycled material. Furthermore, the surficial expression of a bilaterally asymmetric plume is strongly influenced by its tectonic setting: (a) Thick Hawaiian lithosphere supports a volcano evolution process, including rejuvenated volcanism, whereas the thin Galápagos lithosphere inhibits Hawai'i‐style rejuvenated‐stage eruptive activity, instead causing extended, widespread volcanism; (b) the proximity of the Galápagos to a mid‐ocean ridge causes entrainment of the depleted upper mantle, overwhelming depleted material intrinsic to the plume and affecting volcanoes' magmatic architecture; and (c) the geometric relationship between the LLSVP boundary and plate motion influences geochemical patterns at the surface. Thus, despite striking differences in surficial expression of the Galápagos and Hawai'i plumes, they share a common generation mechanism, supplied by the Pacific LLSVP and the lower mantle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".