Foreland basin subsidence driven by topographic growth versus plate subduction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| March 01, 2012 Foreland basin subsidence driven by topographic growth versus plate subduction H.D. Sinclair; H.D. Sinclair † 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, Scotland, UK †E-mail: hugh.sinclair@ed.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar M. Naylor M. Naylor 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, Scotland, UK Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar GSA Bulletin (2012) 124 (3-4): 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1130/B30383.1 Article history received: 03 Aug 2010 rev-recd: 15 Apr 2011 accepted: 21 Apr 2011 first online: 08 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation H.D. Sinclair, M. Naylor; Foreland basin subsidence driven by topographic growth versus plate subduction. GSA Bulletin 2012;; 124 (3-4): 368–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B30383.1 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 The subsidence of foreland basins is classically thought to accelerate with time. However, a synthesis of data from numerous foreland basins recognizes a wide range of signals and rates. Our analysis investigates the influence of two broadly ubiquitous controlling factors: (1) the upward and outward growth of mountain topography and (2) the subduction velocity of the underthrust lithosphere. These two factors have contrasting subsidence signals: The former tends to be slow and decelerates, while the latter is more rapid and accelerates. The geodynamic setting of a foreland basin determines the degrees to which these components dominate the final signal of tectonically induced subsidence. In small collisional mountain ranges, the common asymmetry of subduction defines a pro- and a retro-foreland basin. Based on model experiments and the synthesized data, we demonstrate that pro-foreland basins exhibit short-lived (usually <40 m.y.), rapid (typically >0.05 km m.y.−1), accelerating subsidence histories recording only a portion of the orogenic history of the mountain range; type examples are the Carpathian foredeep and the North Alpine foreland basin. In contrast, retro-foreland basins are characterized by relatively slow (>0.05 km m.y.−1), protracted (usually >40 m.y.) subsidence that records the majority of the orogenic history; a good example is the Aquitaine foreland basin. Retro-arc foreland basins such as the Alberta Basin appear comparable to collisional retro-foreland basins. Examples where there is more protracted subsidence appear to record greater evidence of episodic loading and unloading as the topography of the range grows or shrinks in response to the balance between crustal thickening and erosion rates. 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it