A New P‐Wave Tomographic Model (CAP22) for North America: Implications for the Subduction and Cratonic Metasomatic Modification History of Western Canada and Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our understanding of the present‐day state and evolution of the Canadian and Alaskan mantle is hindered by a lack of absolute P‐wavespeed constraints that provide complementary sensitivity to composition in conjunction with existing S‐wavespeed models. Consequently, cratonic modification, orogenic history of western North America and complexities within the Alaskan Proto‐Pacific subduction system remain enigmatic. One challenge concerns the difficulties in extracting absolute arrival‐time measurements from often‐noisy data recorded by temporary seismograph networks required to fill gaps in continental and global databases. Using the Absolute Arrival‐time Recovery Method (AARM), we extract >180,000 new absolute arrival‐time residuals from seismograph stations across Canada and Alaska and combine these data with USArray and global arrival‐time data from the contiguous US and Alaska. We develop a new absolute P‐wavespeed tomographic model, CAP22, spanning North America that significantly improves resolution in Canada and Alaska over previous models. Slow wavespeeds below the Canadian Cordillera sharply abut fast wavespeeds of the continental interior at the Rocky Mountain Trench in southwest Canada. Slow wavespeeds below the Mackenzie Mountains continue farther inland in northwest Canada, indicating Proterozoic‐Archean metasomatism of the Slave craton. Inherited tectonic lineaments colocated with this north‐south wavespeed boundary suggest that both the crust and mantle may control Cordilleran orogenic processes. In Alaska, fast upper mantle wavespeeds below the Wrangell Volcanic Field favor a conventional subduction related mechanism for volcanism. Finally, seismic evidence for the subducted Kula and Yukon slabs indicate tectonic reconstructions of western North America may require revision.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".