Modes of Mantle Convection, Their Stability, and What Controls Their Existence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The motion of Earth's tectonic plates is the surface expression of mantle convection beneath. Analytical convection models have attempted to relate observables, such as plate velocities and surface heat flow, with the thermo‐mechanical state of the mantle, and remain deeply influential in global geophysics. While such models tend to focus on describing the mantle's behavior today, there is evidence that suggests they may not be the best description for an earlier, hotter mantle. Early in Earth's history, higher temperatures may have led to different convective regimes that include active‐lid (today's form of convection), sluggish‐lid, and stagnant‐lid convection. In this study, we adopt and extend the analytical theory laid out by Crowley & O'Connell (2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05254.x ) that self‐consistently characterizes the first two of these convection regimes. For a given thermo‐mechanical state, the theory predicts one to multiple solutions that each represent distinct modes of mantle convection. Here, we derive new scaling laws that connect these modes to the mantle's Rayleigh number and identify a new fundamental, dimensionless number, which we term the O’Connell number (named after Richard “Rick” J. O'Connell (1941–2015)), that describes a plate's resistance in context of the overall convection of the system. In addition, we identify two key bifurcations that bracket the Rayleigh‐O'Connell number space within which multiple solutions may exist. Finally, we remove the assumption of steady‐state in their original framework in order to perform a linear stability analysis to characterize the relative stability of each convection mode.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".