MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155202518 · doi:10.1029/2021gl095413

Structure and Stress Field of the Lithosphere Between Pamir and Tarim

2021· article· en· W3155202518 on OpenAlexaff
Wasja Bloch, Bernd Schurr, Xiaohui Yuan, Lothar Ratschbacher, Sanaa Reuter, Sofia‐Katerina Kufner, Qiang Xu, Junmeng Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHelmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam - Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsLithosphereGeologySlabInduced seismicitySeismologyMantle (geology)Collision zoneTarim basinStress fieldCrustPlateau (mathematics)Focal mechanismClockwiseSlab windowGeophysicsSubductionTectonicsPaleontologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Pamir plateau protrudes ∼300 km between the Tajik‐ and Tarim‐basin lithosphere of Central Asia. Whether its salient location and shape are caused by forceful indentation of a promontory of Indian mantle lithosphere is debated. We present a new local‐seismicity and focal‐mechanism catalog, and a P‐ wave velocity model of the eastern part of the collision system. The data suggest a south‐dipping Asian slab that overturns in its easternmost segment. The largest principal stress at depth acts normal on the slab and is orientated parallel to the plate convergence direction. In front (south) of the Asian slab, a volume of mantle with elevated velocities and lined by weak seismicity constitutes the postulated Indian mantle indenter. We propose that the indenter delaminates and overturns the Asian slab, underthrusts the Tarim lithosphere along a compressive transform boundary, and controls the location and shape of the Pamir plateau.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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