Crustal channel flows: 1. Numerical models with applications to the tectonics of the Himalayan‐Tibetan orogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plane strain, thermal‐mechanical numerical models are used to examine the development of midcrustal channel flows in large hot orogens. In the models, radioactive self‐heating reduces the viscosity of tectonically thickened crust and increases its susceptibility to large‐scale horizontal flow. Channels can be exhumed and exposed by denudation focused on the high‐relief transition between plateau and foreland. We interpret the Himalaya to have evolved in this manner. Channel flows are poorly developed if the channel has a ductile rheology based on wet quartz flow laws, and well developed if there is an additional reduction in viscosity to 10 19 Pa s. This reduction occurs from 700°C to 750°C in the models and is attributed to a small percentage of in situ partial melt (“melt weakening”). Model HT1 provides an internally consistent explanation for the tectonic evolution of many features of the Himalayan‐Tibetan orogenic system. Erosional exhumation exposes the migmatitic channel, equivalent to the Greater Himalayan Sequence (GHS), between coeval normal and thrust sense ductile shear zones, corresponding to the South Tibetan Detachment and the Main Central Thrust systems. Outward flow of unstable upper crust rotates these shears to low dip angles. In the model both the GHS and the Lesser Himalayan Sequence are derived from Indian crust, with the latter from much farther south. Similar models exhibit a range of tectonic styles, including the formation of domes resembling north Himalayan gneiss domes. Model results are relatively insensitive to channel heterogeneities and to variations in the behavior of the mantle lithosphere beneath the model plateau.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".