MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Drainage patterns and tectonic forcing: a model study for the Swiss Alps

2001· article· en· W2047926936 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBasin Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDalhousie UniversitySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsGeologyTectonicsForcing (mathematics)GeomorphologyTectonic upliftMassifDrainagePaleontologyClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A linear surface process model is used to examine the effect of different patterns of rock uplift on the evolution of the drainage network of the Swiss Alps. An asymmetric pattern of tectonic forcing simulates a phase of rapid retrothrusting in the south of the Swiss Alps (‘Lepontine’‐type uplift). A domal pattern of tectonic forcing in the north of the model orogen simulates the phase of the formation of the ‘Aar massif’, an external basement uplift in the frontal part of the orogenic wedge (‘Aar’‐type uplift). Model runs using the ‘Lepontine’‐type uplift pattern result in a model mountain chain with a water divide in the zone of maximum uplift and orogen‐normal rivers. Model runs examining the effect of ‘Lepontine’‐type uplift followed by ‘Aar’‐type uplift show that the initially formed orogen‐normal river system and the water divide are both very stable and hardly affected by the additional uplift. This indifference to changes in tectonic forcing is mainly due to the requirement of a high model erosion capacity for the river systems in order to reproduce the exhumation data (high‐grade rocks in the south of the Swiss Alps point to removal of a wedge‐shaped nappe stack with a maximum thickness of about 25 km). The model behaviour is in agreement with the ancestral drainage pattern of the Alps in Oligocene and Miocene times and with the modern pattern observed in the Coast Range of British Columbia; in both cases river incision occurred across a zone of rapid uplift in the lower course of the rivers. The model behaviour does not, however, explain the modern drainage pattern in the Alps with its orogen‐parallel rivers. When the model system is forced to develop two locally independent main water divides (simultaneous ‘Lepontine’‐ and ‘Aar’‐type uplift), a zone of reduced erosional potential forms between the two divides. As a consequence, the divides approach each other and eventually merge. The new water divide remains fixed in space independent of the two persisting uplift maxima. The model results suggest that spatial and temporal changes in tectonic forcing alone cannot produce the change from the orogen‐normal drainage pattern of the Swiss Alps in Oligocene–Miocene times to the orogen‐parallel drainage observed in the Swiss Alps today.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it