MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408438377 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-6615

Investigation of seismic anisotropy in the D’’ layer and at the CMB underneath Siberia and the North Atlantic

2025· preprint· en· W4408438377 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yvonne Fröhlich, Fiona Dorn, Muhammad I. F. Dillah, Joachim Ritter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLayer (electronics)AnisotropyOceanographyGeologyPhysicsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the Priority Program 2404 “Reconstructing the Deep Dynamics of Planet Earth over Geologic Time” (DeepDyn, https://www.geo.lmu.de/deepdyn/en/) we investigate possible seismic signatures at magnetic high-latitude flux lobes (HLFLs). The focus is on four target regions on the Northern Hemisphere: Siberia, Canada, the North Atlantic, and Indonesia. While Siberia and Canada show the HLFLs, the North Atlantic should be the location of a third postulated HLFL, but this area does not show an intense-flux signal in the magnetic field. The region beneath Indonesia and the Indian Ocean is characterized by an area of intense magnetic flux that changes direction and moves westwards over time. Our aim is to understand whether mineralogy and seismic structure (i.e., thermal constraints) could be responsible for the different magnetic signatures at the core mantle boundary (CMB). This is done by combining two approaches: seismic anisotropy (KIT) and seismic reflections (University of Münster) near the CMB (https://www.geo.lmu.de/deepdyn/en/projects/ritter-joachim-und-thomas-christine-understanding-the-influence-of-deep/).To study anisotropy, we measure shear wave splitting (SWS) of SKS, SKKS, and PKS phases. Thereby, we determine the splitting parameters, the fast polarization direction φ and the delay time δt, using both the energy-minimization and the rotation-correlation methods. Especially, we search for phase pair discrepancies based on the observation type (null vs. split), e.g., between SKS and SKKS phases, as they are a clear indication for a lowermost mantle contribution to the splitting signal. For the target region underneath Siberia, SWS measurements are obtained using earthquakes with epicenters in Southeast Asia recorded at stations in the North of Scandinavia and Svalbard as well as earthquakes with epicenters in Central America recorded at the station ULN in Mongolia. These SWS measurements indicate that for the discrepant pairs the phases with piercing points closer to the center of the HLFL beneath Siberia show splitting while the phases more distant to the HLFL do not show anisotropy. Furthermore, we present first results for the target region North Atlantic. Based on our SWS measurements, we will derive structural and mineralogical anisotropy models using the MATLAB Seismic Anisotropy Toolbox (Walker and Wookey 2012). To test these models, we then simulate synthetic seismograms using AxiSEM3D (Leng et al. 2016, 2019).

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)0.000
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→