Constrictional Strain and Linear Fabrics as a Result of Deformation Partitioning: A Multiscale Modeling Investigation and Tectonic Significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rocks with a well‐developed lineation but weak or no foliation (L‐tectonites) commonly occur as isolated volumes dispersed in other tectonites. We consider L‐tectonites that reflect constrictional finite strains here and use a multiscale approach to investigate the conditions for constrictional strain fields. The approach combines the strength of kinematic and mechanical analyses in large strain three‐dimensional deformations. Our modeling shows that, in simple shearing and thinning zone progressive deformations, constrictional strains develop only in rheological heterogeneities that are moderately stronger than the bulk material as a whole. Stronger elements never accumulate enough internal strains for any fabric to develop. Inclusions weaker than the bulk material will develop flattening strains. L‐tectonites are most likely developed in macroscale simple shearing, simple‐shearing‐dominated plane‐strain general shearing, or simple‐shearing‐dominated Sanderson and Marchini transpression. The lineations of the L‐tectonites are always nearly parallel to the lineations in the bulk material. Where the lineations are nearly 90° from the vorticity axis, the macroscale flow is close to a plane‐strain general shearing. Where the lineations are oblique to the vorticity axis or more variable, a simple‐shearing‐dominated triclinic thinning zone with mainly uniaxial boundary stretching is likely. The concept of homogeneous transtension deformation, combining a homogeneous pure shearing and a transcurrent simple shearing, is unsupported by fabric evidence and is likely unrealistic. Under an oblique divergence boundary condition, the upper lithosphere deforms by folding and fracturing and the ductile lithosphere develops simple‐shearing‐dominated detachment shear zones. Constrictional strains (hence L‐tectonites) can develop in these detachment zones due to flow partitioning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".