The Influence of Lithospheric Mantle Scars and Rheology on Intraplate Deformation and Orogenesis: Insights From Tectonic Analog Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Structural heterogeneities in the deep lithosphere have been identified as an important factor in crustal tectonics, particularly where inherited deep zones of weakness may initiate orogenesis in continent interiors. Aside from structural heterogeneity, the rheological strength of the lithosphere may also have a primary role affecting the kinematics of deformation in the lithosphere. To investigate the interplay of rheology and preexisting structures, we designed a set of physical scaled analog experiments for a convergent setting that tests (a) the presence and absence of a preexisting weak zone in the lithospheric mantle and (b) the effects of the rheological strength of the lithospheric mantle. Tectonic evolution of the model is recorded to acquire a time series data set of the velocity field and subsequently strain in the model. Results show that a weak zone in the lithospheric mantle allows deformation to be accommodated by displacement along this zone and into the overlying lower and upper crust, regardless of lithosphere strength. In contrast, a model absent of a weak zone accommodates deformation by folding and thickening of the viscous layers. The viscous lithosphere in models with a strong lithospheric mantle tends to buckle creating a sequence of brittle faulting in the upper crust. Specifically, the rheology of the lithosphere dictates the distribution of strain. Our results are considered in the context of the formation of the Eurekan fold and thrust belts in an intraplate setting on Ellesmere Island, where deformation may be related to the influence of deep lithosphere structure(s) and deep lithosphere strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".