Coeval thrusting and extension during lower crustal ductile flow – implications for exhumation of high‐grade metamorphic rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerical models of tectonic processes in large hot orogens offer insight into the styles, controls and consequences of ductile flow of middle and lower orogenic crust. We present results from crustal‐scale thermal‐mechanical models illustrating contrasting styles of syn‐ and post‐convergent ductile flow. Crustal viscosity in the models is controlled by temperature‐dependent flow laws, scaled to represent lithological strength variations. An additional viscosity decrease at high temperature can be imposed to represent weakening during incipient partial melting. Two end‐member tectonic styles, in which lower crustal flow is driven either by gravity or tectonics, develop in response to the initial properties and evolving strength of the model crust. Homogeneous channel flow, driven by the gravitational potential energy difference between a plateau and its foreland, is characteristic of Himalayan–Tibetan (HT‐series) models with relatively weak, laterally homogeneous crust and moderately high heat production. In contrast, Grenville Orogen (GO‐series) models with relatively strong, laterally heterogeneous crust do not reach the low effective viscosity (ηeff≤1019 Pa.s) required for gravity‐driven channel flow. Instead, tectonically driven lateral flow and explusion of lower crust is triggered by underthrusting of a strong indentor. The dominant structures are ductile fold nappes that may be transported hundreds of kilometres towards the foreland. When tectonic convergence is turned off, the model orogens undergo gravitational spreading, in which ductile middle and lower crust flow laterally from the plateau towards the foreland, driving thrusting on the orogenic flanks and ductile thinning in the orogenic core. The resulting geometry can resemble that produced by syn‐convergent ductile flow, except for the development of regional‐scale normal‐sense shear zones in the post‐convergent stage. Model feasibility is tested against data from the western Grenville Orogen in Ontario. The comparison suggests that high‐grade metamorphic rocks in the orogenic core record the effects of protracted syn‐ and post‐convergent ductile flow, whereas those on the flanks record mainly post‐convergent thrusting and extension. The models suggest a number of ways to distinguish among different styles of syn‐ and post‐convergent ductile flow; metamorphic P–T–t paths alone are not diagnostic of tectonic process without additional information on crustal‐scale structure and timing. In combination with erosion, both types of flow may contribute to exhumation of regionally extensive high‐grade gneiss terranes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".