MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recurring volcanism in New England region focused by a region of thin lithosphere

2024· other· en· W6921217622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithosphereVolcanismVolcanoIgneous rockFelsicAsthenosphereMantle (geology)New england

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Appalachian Orogen experienced extensive volcanism through the early Paleozoic, as well as around ~200 Ma. Unlike most of the northern Appalachians, the New England region saw repeated episodes of volcanic activity between 293 and 120 Ma. An anomalous region in the upper mantle beneath New England underlies these distinct volcanic rocks. Low values and lack of anisotropy in seismic velocity imply elevated temperature and suggest subvertical flow in the upper mantle. Our new constraints on the depth to the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary (LAB) show that thinned lithosphere underlies the region of localized repeated anorogenic volcanism in New England. The upper mantle directly beneath the shallow LAB is not unusually warm, while surrounding regions have significantly lower temperatures. Changes in the type of igneous rocks erupted between 150 and 120 Ma, from kimberlites in Ontario to felsic plutons in New England, correlate with variations in lithosphere thickness and imply that these variations existed by 125 Ma. It is also plausible that thin lithosphere is inherited from the time of Appalachian collisions at ~450 Ma. Our overall conclusion is that the region of presently thin lithosphere beneath New England is unusual and has focused volcanic activity within it since ~300 Ma.

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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicCommunism, Protests, Social MovementsFrench-language works237,207