Extension of continental lithosphere in rifted margins: a review of thinning mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crustal geometries imaged at rifted margins show contrasted first-order morphologies (wide and narrow, symmetric or asymmetric conjugates). This contribution aims to review the mechanisms of continental lithospheric thinning and types of extensional structures that control the formation of rifted margins. We illustrate, using a two-layer numerical model (one for the crust and one for the mantle), how different modes of lithospheric thinning shape the end-member crustal geometries of rifted margins depending on the initial thermal conditions and extension rates. As already known, the activation of narrow or wide modes of lithospheric thinning depends on the rheological behaviour of the lower crust and its efficiency as a decoupling layer. Morphologies generated by narrow lithospheric thinning modes compare well with Atlantic-type rifted margins (e.g., Iberia–Newfoundland) while wide lithospheric thinning modes better apply to marginal seas characterized by higher initial geothermal gradients (e.g., South China Sea). Finally, we also emphasize that continental lithosphere thinning is depth-dependent, part of which is transient and cannot easily be measured in natural systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".