MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3159146448 · doi:10.1029/2020gl091957

Hygrometric Control on the Lithosphere‐Asthenosphere Boundary: A 28 Million Year Record From the Canadian Cordillera

2021· article· en· W3159146448 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dante Canil, R. D. Hyndman, Dominic Fode

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLithosphereGeologyMantle (geology)AsthenospherePeridotiteIntraplate earthquakeGeothermal gradientPlate tectonicsConvergent boundaryGeophysicsSeismologyTectonicsPetrologySubductionOceanic crust

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The depth to the lithosphere‐asthenopshere boundary (LAB) provides a strong control on the temperature and strength of the lithosphere and its susceptibility to tectonic deformation. We probe the nature of the LAB by deriving the depth and source of mantle‐xenolith bearing alkaline lavas aged 28 Ma to 8 ka in the Canadian Cordillera (CC). We document a striking coincidence of the average depth of equilibration of these lavas (65 ± 5 km) with the seismically observed LAB both in the CC and in western USA, and the change in H2O storage capacity at the spinel‐garnet transition of fertile peridotite under the geothermal gradient of hot thin back arc regions. The convergence of these factors show the LAB of hot back arcs is hygrometrically controlled at this phase boundary, limiting the H2O to <150 ppm in the mantle lithosphere. Intraplate regions with a shallower LAB require more H2O and/or less fertile lithosphere.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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