MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000104457 · doi:10.1029/2019gl085721

Episodic Lithospheric Deformation in Eastern Tibet Inferred From Seismic Anisotropy

2020· article· en· W3000104457 on OpenAlexaff
Xuewei Bao, Xiaodong Song, David W. Eaton, Yixian Xu, Hanlin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeologyCrustLithosphereSeismologyAnisotropyPlateau (mathematics)UpwellingGeophysicsSeismic anisotropyMantle (geology)Tectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mechanisms for uplift and deformation of the Tibetan Plateau remain vigorously debated; hypotheses include stepwise growth, distributed thickening, and crustal channel flow, each with a distinct anisotropic signature. We have developed a new azimuthally anisotropic shear velocity model for the lithosphere beneath eastern Tibet, based on ambient noise tomography from 643 seismic stations. In our model, the Tibetan upper crust is characterized by strong anisotropy with fast axes that correlate with surface geology and mantle anisotropy, suggesting the occurrence of coherent deformation. However, a much different picture emerges in the middle and lower crust, where anisotropy is disordered and weaker beneath the plateau than along its margins, inconsistent with the prediction of large‐scale eastward crust flow in eastern Tibet. Our observations are best explained by heterogeneous crustal thickening beneath the plateau with complex flow in the middle and lower crust, accompanied by asthenospheric upwelling along the southeastern plateau 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations141
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207