MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187426502 · doi:10.1029/2021gl095075

Coupling Between Lithosphere Removal and Mantle Flow in the Central Andes

2021· article· en· W3187426502 on OpenAlexaff
Huilin Wang, Claire A. Currie, Peter G. DeCelles

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersExxonMobil Research and Engineering CompanyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLithosphereGeologyMagmatismCrustMantle (geology)SubductionGeophysicsLithospheric flexureSeismologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The central Andes is part of a Cordilleran orogen formed through continent‐ocean convergence. In contrast to the thickened crust, the mantle lithosphere below much of the orogen is anomalously thin. Additionally, the surface is characterized by widespread backarc magmatism and transient ∼100‐km‐wide basins that developed the over last 30 million years, with basins located systematically seaward of major backarc ignimbrite centers and basin formation predating the late Miocene magma/ignimbrite flare‐up. Using numerical models, we propose a novel mechanism whereby lithosphere removal is coupled with mantle flow. First, a small area of high‐density eclogitized lower crust initiates a gravitational instability, causing a localized basin at the surface that subsides and then uplifts. Foundering crust and adjacent lithosphere are entrained by subduction‐induced mantle flow, driving regional lithosphere removal and magmatism. The models demonstrate that mantle flow can amplify a local lithosphere instability to orogen‐wide lithosphere removal, rapidly eliminating accumulated mass in the orogen.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207