New constraints to subduction zone arc and backarc mantle temperatures: a test of the corner flow model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heat source for the hot volcanic arc of subduction zones and the uniformly warm backarc is not well understood, particularly where backarc extension is absent. In the widely studied corner flow model, the traction of the underthrusting plate drags down the overlying viscous mantle, and the induced shallower seaward flow brings in heat from the landward and deeper asthenosphere. However, earlier comparisons with observations, especially backarc heat flow, gave poor agreement. There are several new constraints to the temperatures and structures above the underthrusting plate and in the backarc, especially those in western North America, for comparison with model predictions. Seismic receiver functions map horizontal boundaries, including the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary (LAB). Seismic shear wave tomography gives mantle velocity–depth that provides an approximate proxy for temperature. Attenuation of seismic wave speed indicates high temperature or partial melting. The presence of recent backarc volcanics and their geochemistry give the depth and temperature of the LAB. From these constraints in western North America, the LAB reflects ponding of partial melt, is consistently at a depth of 65 ± 3 km and temperature of 1350 ± 25 °C, and overlies nearly constant temperature (adiabatic) asthenosphere across the backarc from Mexico to Alaska. These depth and temperature estimates are greatly different from corner flow model predictions. An alternative hypothesis more consistent with these constraints is vigorous small-scale convection in the backarc asthenosphere. Whether or how this convection coexists with the large-scale flow patterns inferred from the interpretation of seismic anisotropy analyses and to what degree it prevails in the arc–forearc region deserve further research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".