Role of the Early Miocene Jinhe-Qinghe Thrust Belt in the building of the Southeastern Tibetan Plateau topography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the development of key thrust faults in southeastern Tibet is significant to reconstructing the geodynamic and topographic processes. Detailed structure analysis along the ~400 km long Jinhe-Qinghe thrust belt (JQTB) indicate thrust motion with a minor left-lateral component. The exhumation history of the Baishagou granite, based on apatite (U-Th)/He and fission-track thermochronology and thermal modeling, suggest an accelerated exhumation rate (~0.42 km/Myr) between 20 and 15 Ma. We interpret that fast exhumation due to the activation of the Nibi thrust, a northern branch of the JQTB. The ~1.5-2.2 km of exhumation that occurred corresponds to the present topographic difference across the thrust belt. In the Early Miocene, significant relief along JQTB was generated by thrusting. When compared with previous studies it appears that Cenozoic exhumation and relief creation in southeastern Tibet cannot be explained by a single mechanism. Rather, at least three stages of relief creation should be invoked. The first phase is an Eocene NE-SW compression partly coeval with Eocene sedimentation. During the Late Oligocene to Early Miocene the second thrusting phase occurred along the Yulong and Longmenshan thrust belts, and then migrated to the JQTB further to the southeast during 20-15 Ma. A third phase involved the activation of the Xianshuihe fault and the re-activation of the Longmenshan thrust belts and the Muli thrust. The interaction between thrusting and fast river erosion triggered by climate change is not certain but thrusting along thrust belts appears to explain most of the present-day relief in the southeastern Tibetan 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".