Neotectonics of the Western Nepal Fault System: Implications for Himalayan strain partitioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oblique convergence at the Himalayan margin is hypothesized to be partitioned by orogen‐normal thrusting and orogen‐parallel strike‐slip faulting. We conducted field mapping and remote sensing in the Dhaulagiri Range of Nepal, and the results reveal an active regional fault system termed the Western Nepal Fault System (WNFS). Right and normally offset Quaternary deposits and brittly deformed bedrock demarcate dextral slip along two strike‐slip faults striking N40–50°W linked via an extensional right step over striking N10–20°E. The strike‐slip attitudes subparallel bedrock foliation, while the step over cuts at a high angle (~70°). Fault slip data along the strike‐slip segments trend N70°W with minor dip component, top to north. Fault slip data and observed kinematics along the WNFS support our interpretation that the WNFS formed via arc‐parallel stress. On the basis of geometry, kinematics, and structural position we correlate the WNFS to active faults between the Karakoram and Bari Gad faults. This suggests an ~350 km long dextral fault system extending obliquely across the Western Nepal Himalaya which appears to intersect the Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) near 83°30′E, coinciding with a large gradient in the arc‐parallel component of GPS velocities. We interpret the WNFS to represent a class of orogen‐parallel strike‐slip faults working with subduction to accommodate obliquely convergent plate motion. Our observations support the hypothesis that the region lying between the MFT and the WNFS is a continental version of a fore‐arc sliver bounded at its base by the Main Himalayan Thrust.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".