THE ROLE OF MULTIPLE WEAK LITHOLOGIES IN THE DEFORMATION OF COVER UNITS IN THE NORTHWESTERN SEGMENT OF THE ZAGROS FOLD‐AND‐THRUST BELT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geometry, kinematics and dynamics of fold‐and‐thrust belts are strongly influenced by the mechanical behaviour of the basal décollement. However, many fold‐and‐thrust belts also include mechanically weak lithologies such as evaporites and marls or mudstones at different levels within the shortened stratigraphy. The kinematics and dynamic evolution of these thrust belts are controlled by the mechanical behaviour both of the basal décollement and of the weak units embedded within the overlying stratigraphic succession. In the Zagros fold‐and‐thrust belt (ZFTB), the shortened sedimentary cover is between 7 and 12 km thick and mechanically weak lithologies compartmentalize the stratigraphic column at shallow and intermediate levels. In this paper, satellite, field and seismic data from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq are used to identify structures of different sizes and surface traces. The observations are used to underline the role of mechanically weak horizons within the Zagros stratigraphy and the decoupling of deformation both laterally and with depth in the belt. The decoupling between shallow and deeper structures observed in seismic profiles from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq is also reported from field observations from the Iranian part of the Zagros fold‐and‐thrust belt, where folds with different surface traces occur. Decoupling between shallow and deep layers by incompetent lithologies at intermediate depths (e.g. marls, mudstones and evaporites) results in the formation of disharmonic folds. The geometry, size and location of such folds may differ between outcropping and subsurface structures. Decoupling may have a significant impact on hydrocarbon exploration in different parts of the Zagros fold‐and‐thrust belt due to potential offsets between outcropping and subsurface structures and their associated traps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".