Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Lithospheric strength and stress revisited: Pruning the Christmas tree - ScienceDirect
Source: sciencedirect.com
Article summary:
1. Stress in cratons is limited by tectonic force from distant plate boundaries.
2. Average stress in cratonic lithosphere decreases as competent thickness increases.
3. Effective elastic thickness is large even though average differential stress is low.
Article analysis:
The article “Lithospheric Strength and Stress Revisited: Pruning the Christmas Tree” provides an overview of the debate between two competing conceptual frameworks of lithosphere mechanics, one which suggests that the deforming lithosphere is yielding (or critically stressed) at all depths, and another which suggests that the differential stress in a cold lithosphere is generally far below its yield strength. The article uses simple numerical models to investigate stresses in end-member cold cratonic lithosphere (e.g., Canadian Craton) in comparison with end-member warm plate-boundary lithosphere (e.g., Canadian Cordillera).
The article appears to be reliable and trustworthy overall, as it provides a comprehensive overview of the debate between two competing conceptual frameworks of lithosphere mechanics, and uses simple numerical models to investigate stresses in end-member cold cratonic lithosphere and warm plate-boundary lithosphere. The article also presents both sides of the argument fairly, providing evidence for each side's claims and exploring counterarguments where appropriate. Furthermore, the article does not appear to contain any promotional content or partiality towards either side of the argument, nor does it appear to contain any unsupported claims or missing points of consideration.
However, there are some potential biases present in the article which should be noted. For example, while the article does provide evidence for both sides' claims, it does not explore possible risks associated with each side's arguments or present both sides equally; instead, it appears to focus more on presenting evidence for one side's argument than for the other's. Additionally, while the article does provide evidence for each side's claims, it does not provide any new evidence or explore unexplored counterarguments; instead, it relies heavily on existing research and data from previous studies on this topic.