Integrated analyses constraining the provenance of sandstones, mudstones, and conglomerates, a case study: the Laojunshan conglomerate, Qilian orogen, northwest China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Qilian orogenic belt in the northern Tibetan plateau connects the Altaids to the north with the Tethyan orogenic system to the south and occupies a key tectonic position in the evolution and assembly of Asia. The belt contains a wide range of subduction–accretion-related petrotectonic units. The Early–Middle Devonian Laojunshan conglomerate, deposited unconformably upon Cambrian–Silurian strata along the northern margin of the North Qilian terrane, contains a record of the late Paleozoic tectonism of the Qilian orogen. Its provenance and tectonic setting are critical in understanding not only the tectonic evolution of Tibetan plateau, but Paleozoic global reconstructions as well. The composition of clastic conglomerates and heavy mineral assemblages of sandstones suggests that coeval mafic, felsic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks were the main sources. The geochemistry of volcanic clasts and paleocurrent and paleogeographic data suggest derivation from subduction–accretion complexes in the North Qilian terrane. The geochemistry of siltstones and mudstones indicates that the Laojunshan conglomerate was derived from an arc and accumulated in an active continental margin. Geochemical data of granitoid clasts suggest that they were derived from Ordovician–Silurian subduction-related magmatic rocks. Mafic and ultramafic clasts, chromite, and magnetite decrease upwards in the stratigraphy whereas metamorphic, sedimentary and granitoid clasts, and garnet increase. These data imply that mafic rocks were the predominant source during initial deposition. Regional studies suggest that the North China plate subducted southwards and produced subduction-related arc magmatism along the southern margin of the North Qilian terrane during the Early–Middle Devonian. Therefore, we interpret the Laojunshan conglomerate as a fore-arc basin fill.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".