Serpentinization of the forearc mantle wedge in subduction zones: revisiting Roy D. Hyndman’s seminal contributions 25 years later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we focus on the serpentinization of the forearc mantle wedge, just one of Roy Hyndman’s many contributions to our understanding of subduction zones. Over the past 25 years, numerous advances in geophysics, petrology, and geology clearly document that H2O-rich fluids, derived from the subducting plate, hydrate portions of the overlying mantle to form serpentinite. The extent of mantle-wedge serpentinization depends, to first approximation, on the thermal evolution of the subducting plate. Dehydration reactions in warm subducting slabs occur at shallow (<100 km) depth making relatively large amounts of H2O available for forearc mantle-wedge hydration; in cool subduction zones, dehydration reactions occur at greater depth and less H2O is available to directly hydrate the shallow mantle wedge. High-resolution seismological studies, complemented by numerical modelling, reveal that serpentinization in a subduction zone varies spatially, with strong evidence for a serpentinite layer at the base of the mantle wedge. Serpentinite mineralogy plays an important role in controlling the rheologic behaviour of the subduction plate interface, but appears not to control the downdip extent of large thrust earthquakes as originally proposed. Weak serpentinite along the base of the mantle wedge acts to mechanically isolate the forearc mantle wedge from induced corner flow, and serpentinized regions of the forearc mantle wedge may localize deformation. Rare mantle-wedge earthquakes may reflect the subvertical flow of fluids along fractures. Future work in well-instrumented subduction zones is expected to clarify the spatial distribution and extent of serpentinization in the forearc mantle wedge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".