No abstract

The crustal section beneath amphibolite Niedźwiedź Massif (Fore-Sudetic Block in NE Bohemian Massif), modelled on the basis of geological and seismic data, is dominated by gneisses with subordinate granites (upper and middle crust) and melagabbros (lower crust). The geotherm was calculated based on the chemical analyses of the heat-producing elements in the rocks forming the crust and the measurements of their density and heat conductivity. The results were verified by heat flow calculations based on temperature measurements from 1,600 m deep well in the Niedźwiedź Massif and by temperaturedepth estimates in mantle xenoliths coming from the nearby ca. 4.5 My basanite plug in Lutynia. The paleoclimate-corrected heat flow in the Niedźwiedź Massif is 69.5 mW m -2 , and the mantle heat flow is 28 mW m -2 . The mantle beneath the Massif was located marginally relative to the areas of intense Cenozoic thermal rejuvenation connected with alkaline volcanism. This results in geotherm which is representative for lithosphere parts located at the margins of zones of continental alkaline volcanism and at its waning stages. The lithosphereasthenosphere boundary (LAB) beneath Niedźwiedź is located between 90 and 100 km depth and supposedly the rheological change at LAB is not related to the appearance of melt.

The introduction of ‘impact’ as an element of assessment constitutes a major change in the construction of research evaluation systems. While various protocols of impact evaluation exist, the most articulated one was implemented as part of the British Research Excellence Framework (REF). This paper investigates the nature and consequences of the rise of ‘research impact’ as an element of academic evaluation from the perspective of discourse. Drawing from linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian discourse analysis, the study discusses shifts related to the so-called Impact Agenda on four stages, in chronological order: (1) the ‘problematization’ of the notion of ‘impact’, (2) the establishment of an ‘impact infrastructure’, (3) the consolidation of a new genre of writing–impact case study, and (4) academics’ positioning practices towards the notion of ‘impact’, theorized here as the triggering of new practices of ‘subjectivation’ of the academic self. The description of the basic functioning of the ‘discourse of impact’ is based on the analysis of two corpora: case studies submitted by a selected group of academics (linguists) to REF2014 (no = 78) and interviews (n = 25) with their authors. Linguistic pragmatics is particularly useful in analyzing linguistic aspects of the data, while Foucault’s theory helps draw together findings from two datasets in a broader analysis based on a governmentality framework. This approach allows for more general conclusions on the practices of governing (academic) subjects within evaluation contexts.