Influence of offset weak zones on the development of rift basins: Activation and abandonment during continental extension and breakup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use numerical modelling to investigate reactivation of inherited Offset Weak Zones (OWZ) in continental crust and Mantle Weak Zones (MWZ) to form offset rift basins during continental rifting and breakup. Offset rift basins are basins that are set off/offset from the main rift/locus of breakup. Weak zones embedded in a stiff layer are preferentially and rapidly reactivated, whereas the same zones are either ignored or slowly reactivated when embedded in pliable layers. Here stiff implies a nonlinear flow law with a high stress exponent ( n > ∼ 10,000), a plastic material, and pliable means a low stress exponent ( n ∼ 2–5) as in ductile, power‐law creep of rocks. Whether offset rift basins form during rifting of a composite lithosphere (i.e., comprising stiff and pliable layers) depends on the competition between necking instabilities that develop at the weak zones in the stiff layers, and the coupling between the stiff and pliable layers. Stiff/cratonic lithosphere results in early localization of the deformation at the MWZ, rapid necking and breakup without developing offset rift basins. In contrast, warm pliable lithosphere develops significant offset basins and has protracted rifting because the MWZ is now embedded in a pliable layer. We also investigate the influence of OWZ dip, sedimentation, and the sensitivity of reactivation to the distance from OWZ to the MWZ, and to the size of the MWZ. A tectonic rifting styles diagram is used to show that the model results agree with natural examples.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".