MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133637869 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-7605

Dynamics of the extension in the Fonualei Rift in the northern Lau Basin at 16 °S

2021· article· en· W3133637869 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Jegen, Anke Dannowski, Heidrun Kopp, Udo Barckhausen, Ingo Heyde, Michael Schnabel, Florian Schmid, Anouk Beniest, Mark Hannington

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiftPlate tectonicsGeologyPacific PlateSubductionStructural basinRidgeSeismologyConvergent boundarySeafloor spreadingPaleontologyOceanic crustTriple junctionCrustOceanographyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The Lau Basin is a young back-arc basin steadily forming at the Indo-Australian-Pacific plate boundary, where the Pacific plate is subducting underneath the Australian plate along the Tonga-Kermadec island arc. Roughly 25 Ma ago, roll-back of the Kermadec-Tonga subduction zone commenced, which lead to break up of the overriding plate and thus the formation of the western Lau Ridge and the eastern Tonga Ridge separated by the emerging Lau Basin.</p><p>As an analogue to the asymmetric roll back of the Pacific plate, the divergence rates decline southwards hence dictating an asymmetric, V-shaped basin opening. Further, the decentralisation of the extensional motion over 11 distinct spreading centres and zones of active rifting has led to the formation of a composite crust formed of a microplate mosaic. A simplified three plate model of the Lau Basin comprises the Tonga plate, the Australian plate and the Niuafo'ou microplate. The northeastern boundary of the Niuafo'ou microplate is given by two overlapping spreading centres (OLSC), the southern tip of the eastern axis of the Mangatolu Triple Junction (MTJ-S) and the northern tip of the Fonualei Rift spreading centre (FRSC) on the eastern side. Slow to ultraslow divergence rates were identified along the FRSC (8-32 mm/a) and slow divergence at the MTJ (27-32 mm/a), both decreasing southwards. However, the manner of divergence has not yet been identified. Additional regional geophysical data are necessary to overcome this gap of knowledge.</p><p>Research vessel RV Sonne (cruise SO267) set out to conduct seismic refraction and wide-angle reflection data along a 185 km long transect crossing the Lau Basin at ~16 °S from the Tonga arc in the east, the overlapping spreading centres, FRSC1 and MTJ-S2, and extending as far as a volcanic ridge in the west. The refraction seismic profile consisted of 30 ocean bottom seismometers. Additionally, 2D MCS reflection seismic data as well as magnetic and gravimetric data were acquired.</p><p>The results of our P-wave traveltime tomography show a crust that varies between 4.5-6 km in thickness. Underneath the OLSC the upper crust is 2-2.5 km thick and the lower crust 2-2.5 km thick. The velocity gradients of the upper and lower crust differ significantly from tomographic models of magmatically dominated oceanic ridges. Compared to such magmatically dominated ridges, our final P-wave velocity model displays a decreased velocity gradient in the upper crust and an increased velocity gradient in the lower crust more comparable to tectonically dominated rifts with a sparse magmatic budget.</p><p>The dominance of crustal stretching in the regional rifting process leads to a tectonical stretching, thus thinning of the crust under the OLSC and therefore increasing the lower crust’s velocity gradient. Due to the limited magmatic budget of the area, neither the magnetic anomaly nor the gravity data indicate a magmatically dominated spreading centre. We conclude that extension in the Lau Basin at the OLSC at 16 °S is dominated by extensional processes with little magmatism, which is supported by the distribution of seismic events concentrated at the northern tip of the FRSC.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207