Collision tectonics in the Swiss Alps: Insight from geodynamic modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares results from two‐dimensional finite element dynamic modeling with the kinematic evolution of the Swiss Alps during the collision phase. In particular, we investigate the role of inherited lateral strength heterogeneities on orogenesis. A number of first‐order characteristics are directly comparable at crustal scales. In the models the entry of continental crust into the convergent margin marks the end of near‐perfect subduction. Accretion of material of the subducting plate to the upper plate creates an orogenic wedge on the incoming (pro)side and initiates a retroshear zone (or model backthrust). The addition of material to the upper plate builds a bivergent orogen. Heterogeneities in the pro‐crust focus shear and lead to the development of “nappe structures” The combined action of pro‐shear (nappe stacking) and retroshear (backthrusting) uplifts a plug between the two shear zones. Subsequent focusing of shear along the retroshear zone results in rotation of the plug and overlying units, leading to crustal‐scale backfolds as observed in the Swiss Alps. The model experiments predict features relevant to Alpine dynamics, including (1) similar crustal thicknesses and exhumation patterns to those observed in the Swiss Alps today for erosion rates comparable to natural ones (1 mm yr−1), (2) continued accretion and subduction of upper crustal fragments allowing high‐pressure metamorphic conditions, (3) tilting and exhumation of lower crust when a midcrustal weak zone is present, and (4) “shunting” of material across the strong lower crustal wedge of the upper plate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".