The Thermal Regime of NW Canada and Alaska, and Tectonic and Seismicity Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NW Canada and Alaska are the continuation of the North American Cordillera through Mexico, western USA and western Canada. I show that they have similar thermal regimes and thermal control of tectonics and seismicity. I first summarize the multiple constraints to crust and upper mantle temperatures and then discuss some consequences. There are bimodal crust and upper mantle temperatures characteristic of most subduction zones: cool forearc, uniformly hot backarc (Yukon Composite Terrane to Southern Brooks Range, and Mackenzie Mountains), and stable cratonic backstops (Arctic Alaska Terrane and Canadian Shield). The main constraints are as follows: (a) Heat flow measurements, (b) Temperature‐dependent upper mantle velocities and seismic attenuation, (c) Temperature‐dependent topographic elevations; thermal isostasy, (d) Depth and temperature of the seismic lithosphere‐asthenosphere boundary (LAB), (e) Origin temperature and depth of craton kimberlite xenoliths, (f) Geochemically inferred source temperature and depth of recent volcanic rocks. (g) Depth to the magnetic Curie temperature, (h) Depth extent of seismicity. The backarc lithosphere is thin, LAB at 50–85 km and ∼1,350°C ± 25°C. Moho temperatures at 35 km are 850°C ± 100°C compared to cool cratonic areas of 400°C–500°C. The consequences include the following: (a) Thin and weak backarc lithosphere that accommodates pervasive tectonic deformation indicated by wide‐spread seismicity and GPS‐defined motions, in contrast to the stable cratonic regions; (b) Weak backarc lower crust that flattens the Moho and allows detachment and thrusting of the upper crust over the cold strong Arctic Alaska Terrane and Canadian Shield. This article provides a model for how to estimate deep temperatures from multiple constraints.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".