MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405008350 · doi:10.1029/2024gl112155

No Temporal Change Seen in High‐Frequency Waves Scattered Near the Core‐Mantle Boundary

2024· article· en· W4405008350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruoyan Wang, J. E. Vidale, Wei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMantle (geology)GeologyCore–mantle boundaryGeophysicsCosmic microwave backgroundScatteringObservableDiffractionSeismologyInner coreSeismic waveTravel timeCore (optical fiber)PhysicsOpticsAnisotropy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The core‐mantle boundary (CMB) and the outermost core are dynamic and heterogeneous regions with time‐dependent flows. We examine two seismic raypaths, diffracted P and PKP precursors—both replete with scattering, with precisely repeating earthquakes. These earthquakes, occurring in the South Sandwich Islands, were recorded on the Yellowknife array in Canada, the Alice Springs array in Australia, and the Eilson Array in United States for the past 30 years. In all the most resolved cases, five for diffracted P and 19 for PKP precursors, we observe 1–2 Hz scattered waves that exactly repeat within the resolution of our study for more than 10 s. Although the absence of observable changes is unsurprising, it imposes constraints on potential temporal variations near the CMB. This suggests that any dynamic processes in this region might either be too subtle to detect, even with high‐frequency waves, or occur on different timescales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207