MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214619034 · doi:10.1130/g49467.1

Decrypting the polymetamorphic record of the Himalaya

2022· article· en· W4214619034 on OpenAlexaff
Iva Lihter, Kyle P. Larson, Matthijs A. Smit, John M. Cottle, Kyle T. Ashley, Sudip Shrestha

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeochronologyGeologyMetamorphismMetamorphic rockGeochemistryCenozoicPermianPaleontologyOrogenyOrdovicianTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reconstructions of the tectonometamorphic architectures of orogenic systems rely on petrogenetic indicator minerals, such as garnet, to trace the transport of rocks through space and time. We show the results of new garnet Lu–Hf geochronology and inclusion U-(Th-)Pb geochronology from exhumed midcrustal metamorphic rocks exposed in the Kanchenjunga region of the eastern Nepalese Himalaya. Garnet in three of the five specimens analyzed yielded pre-Himalayan Lu–Hf dates of ca. 292–230 Ma, which contrasts with Himalayan-aged inclusions therein. Garnet in these specimens either grew entirely during the Early Permian opening of the Neo-Tethys Ocean or grew partly during Cambrian–Ordovician orogenesis and partly during the Cenozoic. The remaining two specimens yield Lu–Hf ages of ca. 50 Ma, which are some of the oldest recorded dates for Himalayan metamorphism. The apparent discordance between the geochronological techniques highlights a potential issue with interpretations that rely on single-geochron-method inclusion records. These results further show that some pressure-temperature determinations used in Himalayan models may not be Himalayan in age.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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)0.0480.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207