MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117065525 · doi:10.1144/0016-76492007-081

Defining the Himalayan Main Central Thrust in Nepal

2008· article· en· W2117065525 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

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPaleontologyClastic rockThrustSedimentary rockEarth scienceSeismologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An inverted metamorphic field gradient associated with a crustal-scale south-vergent thrust fault, the Main Central Thrust, has been recognized along the Himalaya for over 100 years. A major problem in Himalayan structural geology is that recent workers have mapped the Main Central Thrust within the Greater Himalayan Sequence high-grade metamorphic sequence along several different structural levels. Some workers map the Main Central Thrust as coinciding with a lithological contact, others as coincident with the kyanite isograd, up to 1–3 km structurally up-section into the Tertiary metamorphic sequence, without supporting structural data. Some workers recognize a Main Central Thrust zone of high ductile strain up to 2–3 km thick, bounded by an upper thrust, MCT-2 (= Vaikrita thrust), and a lower thrust, MCT-1 (= Munsiari thrust). Some workers define an ‘upper Lesser Himalaya’ thrust sheet that shows similar P – T conditions to the Greater Himalayan Sequence. Others define the Main Central Thrust either on isotopic (Nd, Sr) differences, differences in detrital zircon ages, or as being coincident with a zone of young (<5 Ma) Th–Pb monazite ages. Very few papers incorporate any structural data in justifying the position of the Main Central Thrust. These studies, combined with recent quantitative strain analyses from the Everest and Annapurna Greater Himalayan Sequence, show that a wide region of high strain characterizes most of the Greater Himalayan Sequence with a concentration along the bounding margins of the South Tibetan Detachment along the top, and the Main Central Thrust along the base. We suggest that the Main Central Thrust has to be defined and mapped on strain criteria, not on stratigraphic, lithological, isotopic or geochronological criteria. The most logical place to map the Main Central Thrust is along the high-strain zone that commonly occurs along the base of the ductile shear zone and inverted metamorphic sequence. Above that horizon, all rocks show some degree of Tertiary Himalayan metamorphism, and most of the Greater Himalayan Sequence metamorphic or migmatitic rocks show some degree of pure shear and simple shear ductile strain that occurs throughout the mid-crustal Greater Himalayan Sequence channel. The Main Central Thrust evolved both in time (early–middle Miocene) and space from a deep-level ductile shear zone to a shallow brittle thrust fault.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.174 · 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