MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090339849 · doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2006.268.01.07

Provenance of the Greater Himalayan Sequence and associated rocks: predictions of channel flow models

2006· article· en· W2090339849 on OpenAlexaff
R. A. Jamieson, Christopher Beaumont, M. H. Nguyen, Djordje Grujić

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvenanceGeologySequence (biology)Channel (broadcasting)PaleontologyFlow (mathematics)GeomorphologyGeochemistryGeometryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Numerical models for channel flow in the Himalayan—Tibetan system are compatible with many tectonic and metamorphic features of the orogen. Here we compare the provenance of crustal material in two channel flow models (HT1 and HT111) with observations from the Himalaya and southern Tibet. Thirty million years after the onset of channel flow, the entire model crust south of the India—Asia suture still consists only of ‘Indian’ material. The model Greater Himalayan Sequence (‘GHS’) is derived from Indian middle crust originating ≤1000 km south of the initial position of the suture, whereas the Lesser Himalayan Sequence (‘LHS’) is derived mainly from crust originating ≥1400 km south of the suture. Material tracking indicates little or no mixing of diverse crustal elements in the exhumed region of the model ‘GHS’, which is derived from originally contiguous materials that are transported together in the top of the channel flow zone. These results are compatible with provenance data indicating a clear distinction between GHS and LHS protoliths, with the GHS originating from a more distal position (relative to cratonic India) than the LHS. In model HT111, domes formed between the suture and the orogenic front are cored by ‘Indian’ middle crust similar to the ‘GHS’, consistent with data from the north Himalayan gneiss domes. Material tracking shows that plutons generated south of the suture should have ‘Indian’ crustal signatures, also compatible with observations. Model ‘GHS’ pressure—temperature—time (P-T-t) paths pass through the dehydration melting field between 30 and 15 Ma, consistent with observed leucogranite ages. Finally, exposure of midcrustal ‘GHS’ and ‘LHS’ material at the model erosion front is consistent with the observed appearance of sedimentary detritus in the Lesser Himalaya. We conclude that channel flow model results are compatible with provenance data from the Himalaya and southern Tibet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207