The role of subduction in the formation of Pangaean oceanic large igneous provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large igneous provinces (LIPs) have been linked to both surface and deep mantle processes. During the formation, tenure and break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea, there is an increase in emplacement events for both continental and oceanic LIPs. There is currently no clear consensus on the origin of LIPs, but a hypothesis relates their formation to crustal emplacement of hot plume material originating in the deep mantle. The interaction of subducted slabs with the lowermost mantle thermal boundary and subsequent return flow is a key control on such plume generation. This mechanism has been explored for LIPs below the interior of a supercontinent (i.e. continental LIPs). However, a number of LIPs formed exterior to Pangaea (e.g. Ontong Java Plateau), with no consensus on their formation mechanism. Here, we consider the dynamics of supercontinent processes as predicted by numerical models of mantle convection and analyse whether circum-supercontinent subduction could generate both interior (continental) and exterior (oceanic) deep mantle plumes. Our numerical models show that subduction related to the supercontinent cycle can reproduce the location and timing of the Ontong Java Plateau, Caribbean LIP and potentially the Shatsky Rise by linking the origin of these LIPs to the return flow that generated deep mantle exterior plumes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".