MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474150078 · doi:10.1130/g37756.1

Asymmetric exhumation of the Mount Everest region: Implications for the tectono-topographic evolution of the Himalaya

2016· article· en· W2474150078 on OpenAlexaff
Bárbara Carrapa, Xavier Robert, Peter G. DeCelles, Devon A. Orme, Stuart N. Thomson, Lindsay M. Schoenbohm

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyMountLibrary scienceArchaeologyCartographyHistoryGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The tectonic and topographic history of the Himalaya-Tibet orogenic system remains controversial, with several competing models that predict different exhumation histories. Here, we present new low-temperature thermochronological data from the Mount Everest region, which, combined with thermal-kinematic landscape evolution modeling, indicate asymmetric exhumation of Mount Everest consistent with a scenario in which the southern edge of the Tibetan Plateau was located >100 km farther south during the mid-Miocene. Northward plateau retreat was caused by erosional incision during the Pliocene. Our results suggest that the South Tibetan Detachment was a localized structure and that no coupling between precipitation and erosion is required for Miocene exhumation of Greater Himalayan Sequence rocks on Mount Everest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207