Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| November 01, 2013 On the origin of orogens R.A. Jamieson; R.A. Jamieson † 1Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada †E-mail: beckyj@dal.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar C. Beaumont C. Beaumont 2Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information R.A. Jamieson † 1Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada C. Beaumont 2Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada †E-mail: beckyj@dal.ca Publisher: Geological Society of America Received: 18 Jan 2013 Revision Received: 13 Jun 2013 Accepted: 24 Jul 2013 First Online: 08 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-2674 Print ISSN: 0016-7606 © 2013 Geological Society of America GSA Bulletin (2013) 125 (11-12): 1671–1702. https://doi.org/10.1130/B30855.1 Article history Received: 18 Jan 2013 Revision Received: 13 Jun 2013 Accepted: 24 Jul 2013 First Online: 08 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation R.A. Jamieson, C. Beaumont; On the origin of orogens. GSA Bulletin 2013;; 125 (11-12): 1671–1702. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B30855.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGSA Bulletin Search Advanced Search Abstract In order to understand how orogens “work,” a quantitative approach demonstrating proof of concept is essential. Our goal is to reconcile the diverse array of tectonic features observed in natural orogens in the context of “working” numerical models that are consistent with both the underlying physics and first-order geological constraints. We present a simple conceptual temperature-magnitude (T-M) framework for orogenesis in terms of the progression from small-cold to large-hot orogens, and we use forward numerical models to test hypotheses corresponding to specific stages along the T-M spectrum. Small-cold orogens are analyzed using crustal-scale singularity (S) point models, in which suborogenic mantle lithosphere is kinematically subducted beneath crust that deforms by critical wedge mechanics. The transition from oceanic subduction to continental collision, and the subsequent evolution of large-hot orogens, has been investigated using both crustal- and upper-mantle–scale models, the latter including dynamic subduction of suborogenic mantle lithosphere. Large-hot orogens with thick crust are characterized by elevated plateaus with a strong superstructure underlain by hot, weak, lower-crustal infrastructure. Beneath plateaus, tectonic processes are dominated by ductile flow of weak crust in response to differential pressure, while plateau flanks form external thrust-sense wedges. We discuss four topical issues in orogenic tectonics, including the response of the suborogenic mantle lithosphere to convergence, the interaction of climate and tectonics, the current debate concerning wedge versus channel-flow models to explain the Himalayan-Tibetan system, and the interpretation of metamorphic architecture in terms of orogenic processes. We conclude that collisional orogenesis is driven largely by subduction and accretion of material at convergent margins, accompanied by shortening, thickening, and heating of deformed crust. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".