MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194525744 · doi:10.1111/ter.12551

Middle Eocene‐Oligocene anatexis and exhumation of the Greater Himalayan Sequence in central Nepal

2021· article· en· W3194525744 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiqin Xu, Qin Wang, Hanwen Dong, Hui Cao, Guangwei Li, Fenghua Liang, Santa Man, Andrew Kylander‐Clark, Santosh Adhikari, Shaocheng Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeologyAnatexisMyloniteKyaniteGneissShear zoneLineationZirconGeochronologyMonaziteShear (geology)SillimaniteGeochemistryMain Central ThrustSinistral and dextralGeomorphologyMetamorphic rockSeismologyPetrologyPaleontologyFault (geology)QuartzTectonicsCrustPartial meltingBiotite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present structural analysis and zircon and monazite geochronology of the Greater Himalayan Sequence (GHS) in the Kali Gandaki valley, central Nepal. Although the foliation is moderately NE‐dipping, the upper GHS shows a top‐to‐WNW shear sense, whereas the lower GHS developed top‐to‐SW ductile shear zones. Quartz fabrics from mylonitic gneisses indicate deformation temperature from >650°C to ~450°C. Monazite from the GHS recorded anatexis at “near peak” conditions from ~43 to 28 Ma and exhumation near the sillimanite‐kyanite transition at 25–21 Ma. Ages of zircon rims constrain the onset of exhumation. From the upper GHS to the Main Central Thrust zone, pervasive deformation and anticlockwise rotation of the lineation from the orogen‐parallel to orogen‐perpendicular direction suggest exhumation of the GHS by general shear from ~31 to 21 Ma. A two‐stage exhumation model is proposed to explain the diffuse strain distribution and anatexis during early crustal thickening.

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 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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)0.0110.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207