Timing of India‐Asia collision: Geological, biostratigraphic, and palaeomagnetic constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A range of ages have been proposed for the timing of India‐Asia collision; the range to some extent reflects different definitions of collision and methods used to date it. In this paper we discuss three approaches that have been used to constrain the time of collision: the time of cessation of marine facies, the time of the first arrival of Asian detritus on the Indian plate, and the determination of the relative positions of India and Asia through time. In the Qumiba sedimentary section located south of the Yarlung Tsangpo suture in Tibet, a previous work has dated marine facies at middle to late Eocene, by far the youngest marine sediments recorded in the region. By contrast, our biostratigraphic data indicate the youngest marine facies preserved at this locality are 50.6–52.8 Ma, in broad agreement with the timing of cessation of marine facies elsewhere throughout the region. Double dating of detrital zircons from this formation, by U‐Pb and fission track methods, indicates an Asian contribution to the rocks thus documenting the time of arrival of Asian material onto the Indian plate at this time and hence constraining the time of India‐Asia collision. Our reconstruction of the positions of India and Asia by using a compilation of published palaeomagnetic data indicates initial contact between the continents in the early Eocene. We conclude the paper with a discussion on the viability of a recent assertion that collision between India and Asia could not have occurred prior to ∼35 Ma.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".