Oligocene‐Miocene back‐thrusting in southern Mexico linked to the rapid subduction erosion of a large forearc block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the timing and mechanism for the removal of a ∼150–250 km wide forearc block from southern Mexico during the Cenozoic are controversial. Principal competing hypotheses are (1) removal due to sinistral strike‐slip shear, in which slow, diachronous removal of the Chortis Block throughout the Cenozoic is inferred, and (2) removal due to subduction erosion, in which rapid removal of a large forearc block during the late Oligocene/early Miocene is inferred to be synchronous with the rapid landward migration of the southern Mexican arc. New data indicate northeast‐directed back‐thrusting in (1) the Chacalapa shear zone west of −96.5°E, with the timing of shear deformation bracketed by a 25.5 ± 0.5 Ma U/Pb zircon age and a 20.7 ± 0.6 Ma Ar/Ar biotite age, and (2) in an unnamed shear zone to the south, with the timing of deformation bracketed by a 27.5 ± 0.5 Ma U/Pb zircon age and a 25.1 ± 0.2 Ma Ar/Ar biotite age. Zircon and biotite ages date the emplacement and cooling of deformed plutons, respectively. The observed back‐thrusting is consistent with a model of forearc removal due to subduction‐erosion processes because it is evidence for subduction‐orthogonal shortening occurring within the upper plate just before the landward migration of the southern Mexican arc. Rapid subduction of the southern Mexican forearc could have recycled continental lithosphere into the upper mantle at a rate up to half the global average rate of subduction erosion during the late Oligocene/early Miocene.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".