Opening of the Sumdo Paleo-Tethys Ocean and rifting of the Lhasa terrane from Gondwana: Insights from early Carboniferous magmatism in southern Tibet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The late Paleozoic tectonic evolution of the Lhasa terrane and opening of the Sumdo Paleo-Tethys Ocean remain controversial due to limited data and the ambiguous tectonic significance of Paleozoic magmatism in the southern Lhasa subterrane. Here, we explore the petrogenesis of meta-basalt from the Tangjia area and meta-gabbro from the Sumdo area to provide new constraints on the evolution of the Lhasa terrane. The geochemical characteristics of meta-gabbro are similar to those of oceanic island basalt and have positive whole-rock εNd(t) values (+0.08 to +1.03) and zircon εHf(t) values (+3.4 to +4.9), which suggests that they originated from asthenospheric mantle with minor contributions from lithospheric mantle in an intracontinental rift setting. The meta-basalt yields positive whole-rock εNd(t) values (+6.47 to +6.60) and zircon εHf(t) values (+14.2 to +15.2) and has enriched mid-oceanic-ridge−like geochemical characteristics; we suggest that the meta-basalt was sourced from the depleted mantle and interacted with enriched components in an initial oceanic basin setting. Zircon U−Pb geochronology of meta-basalt and meta-gabbro yielded crystallization ages of ca. 338 Ma and ca. 345 Ma, respectively. We suggest that the Sumdo Paleo-Tethys Ocean opened in the early Carboniferous. Negative buoyancy of Paleo-Tethys oceanic slab during subduction toward Eurasia drove the opening of the Sumdo Paleo-Tethys Ocean. Given that the Sumdo Paleo-Tethys Ocean was a limited oceanic basin, the Lhasa terrane was not completely separated from the northern margin of Gondwana before the Permian.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".