MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107034389 · doi:10.1111/jmg.12583

Delineation of multiple metamorphic events in the Himalayan Kathmandu Complex, central Nepal

2020· article· en· W3107034389 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas A. Johnson, John M. Cottle, Kyle P. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Metamorphic Geology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
KeywordsTitaniteAllaniteGeologyMetamorphic rockGeothermobarometryMetamorphismGeochemistryTrace elementMonaziteQuartzIsogradMineralogyZirconMetamorphic faciesPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quartz‐inclusion geothermobarometry of texturally and chemically zoned garnet, together with U–(Th)–Pb accessory phase petrochronology, phase equilibria modelling, and major element thermobarometry delineates two metamorphic events within the Kathmandu Complex in central Nepal. Combined titanium‐in‐quartz thermometry (TitaniQ) and quartz‐in‐garnet barometry (QuiG) of quartz inclusions in garnet cores yields temperatures and pressures (555–580°C, 0.89–0.91 GPa) statistically higher than those estimated for both garnet rims and secondary garnet neoblasts (535–545°C, 0.81–0.84 GPa). Comparison of these temperatures and pressures with the results from phase equilibria modelling indicates that the garnet cores nucleated after overstepping the equilibrium garnet isograd. Estimation of the degree to which overstepping may have occurred, however, is complicated by uncertainty in the estimated reactive bulk compositions. Major element thermobarometry of the garnet rims returns temperatures and pressures lower than those preserved by the garnet cores but are consistent with previous estimates of Cenozoic metamorphism in the frontal portion of Kathmandu thrust sheet. Two generations of titanite are recognized on the basis of mineral morphology, chemical zoning, and U–Pb date ( c . 500 Ma versus 29 ± 5 Ma). Trace‐element systematics of the two titanite populations indicate varying co‐stability with allanite and are consistent with Th–Pb dates of allanite growth ( c . 489 Ma) and breakdown to clinozoisite ( c . 30 Ma). Inclusion patterns within titanite indicate that the younger group formed following breakdown of rutile that originally coexisted with the older generation of titanite at pressures and temperatures similar to those determined from the garnet cores. Application of the Zr‐in‐titanite and Zr‐in‐rutile thermometers yields temperatures 100–150°C in excess of those indicated by both TitaniQ‐QuiG and major element thermobarometry. This discrepancy is interpreted to reflect disequilibrium partitioning of Zr and limited zircon reactivity during metamorphism. Collectively, these observations are consistent with previous estimates of the timing and conditions of metamorphism associated with the Palaeozoic Bhimphedian and Cenozoic Himalayan orogenies in central Nepal. The estimated temperatures and pressures for growth of the garnet cores are consistent with rapid burial during thrust stacking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Metamorphic GeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207