An argument for channel flow in the southern Canadian Cordillera and comparison with Himalayan tectonics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Crustal thickening in excess of 55 km, and high heat flow, suggest that a high-standing plateau region in the Cordilleran hinterland was present in the Late Cretaceous. A low strength middle crust developed beneath the plateau, and parts of this layer were exhumed to upper crustal levels in Late Cretaceous to Eocene time. During Late Cretaceous time, structures in the hinterland were reactivated. Strata, buried to mid-crustal depths since the Jurassic, began to flow upward to higher levels; earlier structures were refolded and tightened, and a new transposition fabric developed. Some 10–20 km of the middle crust was involved in high temperature ductile flow. The lower boundary of the ductile zone lies with thrust sense on top of Precambrian rocks of Canadian Shield affinity, and splays upwards to the NE where it closely coincides with highly strained rocks in the hanging wall of the Purcell Thrust Fault. The upper boundary is marked by a normal-sense high strain zone, above which only minor Cretaceous deformation occurred. The boundaries were reactivated at upper crustal levels after cessation of flow in the mid-crustal channel. This reactivation resulted in formation of ductile to brittle extension faults such as the Okanagan Fault System. During final stages of flow, the Precambrian basement gneisses at the base of the channel became domed and exhumed to upper crustal levels. Comparisons with Himalayan tectonics are clearly drawn, but there are significant contrasts such as the long residence time of the proposed Cordilleran channel, and the nature of the channel boundaries.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".