Numerical models for the control of inherited basin geometries on structures and emplacement of the Klippen nappe (Swiss Prealps)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cover nappes commonly deform above a shallow basal detachment surface located above rigid crystalline basement rocks. Inherited basin geometries are presumed to control the kinematic evolution and detachment of cover nappes in an accretionary wedge. We compare results from two-dimensional finite element modelling with the structural style of a natural cover nappe, the Klippen nappe, which was detached from its basement along an evaporitic detachment horizon and thrust over a distance of roughly 100 km. First-order characteristics of the Klippen nappe paleo-basin include a complex distribution of weak detachment rocks and various changes in the sediment composition and layer thicknesses; two types of structural style can be distinguished: an imbricate fan at the rear end of the nappe (Prealpes Medianes Rigides) and a fold-dominated region at the front (Prealpes Medianes Plastiques). The model results resemble the first-order characteristics of the Klippen nappe. The model experiments suggest that the formation of imbricates and fault-related folds are controlled by the discontinuity of detachment horizons. Discontinuities are locations where thrust ramps are triggered and layer heterogeneities control the locations for the initiation of detachment folds. Basement horsts may lead to the formation of recumbent folds, which develop a melange zone on the highly sheared inverted limb. The experiments also suggest that the thickness of the basal detachment horizon of the Medianes Plastiques decreases gradually from the foreland to the hinterland.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".