Drainage Reorganization Across the Puna Plateau Margin (NW Argentina): Implications for the Preservation of Orogenic Plateaus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Planform drainage reorganization is implicated in both the construction and destruction of elevated, low relief orogenic plateaus. The formation of internally drained basins and subsequent sediment infilling may enlarge plateaus, while more erosive rivers at plateau margins dissect these features. Assessing the contradictory role of planform drainage reorganization on the production, preservation, and dissection of orogenic plateaus requires understanding the potential controls on planform drainage changes. Given minimal evidence of major fluvial incision of the Puna Plateau, the Puna margin is an ideal location to elucidate the role of drainage reorganization on plateau preservation. Using local relief, channel elevations, normalized steepness channel index, and geomorphic evidence, we identify patterns of ongoing and paleodrainage reorganization across the Puna margin, and compare these results to potential tectonic, climatic, and lithologic controls. The majority of the modern Puna margin is stable and we find evidence of minor paleo‐divide migration into the plateau interior. We suggest tectonically controlled base level differences across the Puna margin pushed the divide into the plateau interior, until it stabilized at its modern position. However, we also find three examples of major, transient paleo‐divide migration back into the foreland controlled by basin geometry and rock erodibility (i.e., lithology and precipitation gradients) at the basin outlet. Our results emphasize the predominant role of widespread and recent tectonic base level changes and indirect structural controls on patterns of drainage reorganization and the formation and preservation of orogenic plateaus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".