Inherited terrane properties explain enigmatic post-collisional Himalayan-Tibetan evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations highlight the complex tectonic, magmatic, and geodynamic phases of the Cenozoic post-collisional evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen and show that these phases migrate erratically among terranes accreted to Asia prior to the Indian collision. This behavior contrasts sharply with the expected evolution of large, hot orogens formed by collision of lithospheres with laterally uniform properties. Motivated by this problem, we use two-dimensional numerical geodynamical model experiments to show that the enigmatic behavior of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogeny can result from crust-mantle decoupling, transport of crust relative to the mantle lithosphere, and diverse styles of lithospheric mantle delamination, which emerge self-consistently as phases in the evolution of the system. These model styles are explained by contrasting inherited mantle lithosphere properties of the Asian upper-plate accreted terranes. Deformation and lithospheric delamination preferentially localize in terranes with the most dense and weak mantle lithosphere, first in the Qiangtang and then in the Lhasa mantle lithospheres. The model results are shown to be consistent with 11 observed complexities in the evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen. The broad implication is that all large orogens containing previously accreted terranes are expected to have an idiosyncratic evolution determined by the properties of these terranes, and will be shown to deviate from predictions of uniform lithosphere models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".