Mechanical stability model of progradational carbonate platform margins under tectonic loads: Deformation of Cretaceous carbonate platforms in the Sierra Madre Oriental fold‐thrust belt (east central Mexico)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shortening in the Sierra Madre Oriental fold‐thrust belt (east central Mexico) is localized along the margins of Cretaceous carbonate platforms and controlled by mechanical stratigraphy. The platform margins are deformed by imbricate series of thrust ramps, whereas the coeval basins and platform interiors are deformed by map‐scale detachment folds. Here we present a finite element model to evaluate the influence of the boundary geometry and boundary conditions on the style of deformation observed at these basinward progradational platform margins. We calculate the stress distribution in a linearly elastic platform‐basin transition zone under the action of horizontal tectonic stress, taking into account changes of rock mechanical properties across the platform margin, as well as their dependence on direction, and infer the resulting fracture patterns based on the Mohr‐Coulomb failure criterion. Stress concentrations are predicted at the contacts between the massive rocks of the platform margin and the well‐layered rocks of both, the platform interior and the adjacent basin. Brittle failure of the platform border can be mostly attributed to three effects: mechanical coupling between the carbonate platform and a substratum of moderate to low viscosity, variations in layering and texture that governed the mechanical properties of the involved carbonates as well as their dependence on direction, and the development of sharp domain boundary corners associated with progradational facies changes. In contrast, the dip of the basement and a possible taper of the overlying Upper Cretaceous shale toward the basin appear to have little influence on the mechanical failure of the platform margin.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".