MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coeval thrusting and extension during lower crustal ductile flow – implications for exhumation of high‐grade metamorphic rocks

2010· article· en· W2107670992 on OpenAlex
R. A. Jamieson, Christopher Beaumont

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Metamorphic Geology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGeologyForeland basinCrustTectonicsLithosphereMetamorphic core complexPetrologyGeophysicsGeomorphologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 ( η eff ≤10 19 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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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