MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378233795 · doi:10.1038/s43247-023-00843-0

Transport and eruption of mantle xenoliths creates a lagging problem

2023· article· en· W4378233795 on OpenAlexafffund
James K. Russell, Thomas J. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsXenolithLithosphereGeologyMantle (geology)KimberliteVolcanoPeridotiteLagGeochemistryPetrologySeismologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mantle-derived xenoliths entrained by low viscosity magmas indicate transport through great thicknesses of orogenic (≲50-80 km) and cratonic ( $$\lesssim$$ ≲ 20 km) mantle lithosphere. The size and density of xenoliths dictate that, relative to the ascending magma, they continuously settle during transport. This creates a lag time between when the initial sampling magma reaches the Earth’s surface and the arrival of the xenoliths. The magnitude of this lag time depends on xenolith properties, sampling depth and the magma ascent velocity. Here, using settling calculations, we develop this lag time concept and show how eruption durations and volumes can impact the distribution, abundance, and properties (e.g., sample depths, size) of xenoliths. Lag times can account for heterogenous xenolith distributions within volcanic deposits, the potential biased sampling of the mantle lithosphere, and can constrain minimum eruption volumes required to transport and erupt the deepest sourced xenoliths such as those producing diamondiferous kimberlites.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207