Delamination in Collisional Orogens: Insights from Thermally-Controlled Buoyancy and Physical Modeling By
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delamination of the crust from the lower lithosphere has occurred in several collisional orogens, most notably the Alps, Pyrenees, and Canadian Cordillera. Some workers suggest this process to be similar to the tectonic wedging and stratigraphic delamination associated with triangle-zone development, known to depend on the kilometer-scale pattern of mechanical layering in foreland fold and thrust belts. More than 35 orogens explored by deep geophysical techniques have been reviewed with no obvious correlation between crustal composition and a tendency to delaminate. Delamination of subducting passive margins is more common than tectonically and/or volcanically active overriding margins. Estimates of lithospheric density show that the lower lithosphere of cool passive margins may contain greater negatively buoyant mass than warmer active margins. The top of the densest layer of lower lithosphere is aligned with a weak zone located near the base of the crust. Because passive margins have a denser lower lithosphere, they show a greater tendency for delamination during collisional orogenic events than active margins. Scaled physical models with a model continental crust weakly coupled to a negatively buoyant mantle layer delaminate during shortening. In contrast, weakly coupled models with a positively buoyant mantle layer exhibit no tendency for delamination or wedging, despite a weak horizon at the base of the model crust. This change in behavior indicates that the mass distribution within the lithosphere, in contrast to mechanical layering, is a primary control on the process of collisional delamination.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".