MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implications of the fault scaling law for the growth of topography: mountain ranges in the broken foreland of north‐east Tibet

2004· article· en· W2110321124 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
KeywordsGeologyForeland basinTectonicsFault (geology)ScalingElevation (ballistics)ErosionGeomorphologySeismologyGeodesyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A fault scaling law suggests that, over eight orders of magnitude, fault length L is linearly related to maximum displacement D . Individual faults may therefore retain a constant ratio of D / L as they grow. If erosion is minor compared with tectonic uplift, the length and along‐strike relief of young mountain ranges should thus reflect fault growth. Topographic profiles along the crests of mountain ranges in the actively deforming foreland of north‐east Tibet exhibit a characteristic shape with maximum height near their centre and decreasing elevation toward the tips. We interpret the along‐strike relief of these ranges to reflect the slip distribution on high‐angle reverse faults. A geometric model illustrates that the lateral propagation rate of such mountain ranges may be deciphered if their length‐to‐height ratio has remained constant. As an application of the model, we reconstruct the growth of the Heli Shan using a long‐term uplift rate of ∼1.3 mm yr −1 derived from 21 Ne and 10 Be exposure dating.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.211 · 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