Soft Sedimentary Deformations Structures (SSDS) in Neoproterozoic Sharaban Formation, Kirana Complex, Pakistan: Regional Tectonic Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soft sedimentary deformation structures (SSDs) are imperative intuition into the paleotectonic history of an active tectonic setting; however, they become arduous when dealing with Neoproterozoic intracratonic regions. A lesser known stratigraphic unit of Neoproterozoic age Sharaban Formation in Pakistan was undocumented for its SSDs and other stratigraphic details. Sharaban Formation was always thought to be a unit of metaquartzites in previous studies. Though, sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks were present. These rocks are associated with primary and secondary sedimentary structures (especially SSDs). This paper aims to identify facies, primary and secondary sedimentary structures, especially SSDs, and later link them to the paleotectonic history of the region. For this purpose, a detailed field study was designed and carried out for more than a decade, with high-resolution field photographs, sketches, and plotting. Our fieldwork reveals that the formation is made up of four rock types, metasandstone, metaconglomeratic sandstone, limestone, and quartz veins. Numerous types of sedimentary structures are found like graded bedding, cross-bedding, imbrication, synsedimentary deformation structures, convolute structure, flame structure, folds and faults, chevron–type folding, ball and pillow structure, chaotic bedding, etc. The Sharaban Formation’s depositional environment is represented from low energy coastal environment to possibly a braided river system, while limestone could have deposited in a lagoonal setting. Later the SSDs could have been formed as a result of seismic activity subsequently controlled by the cratonic rifting in the larger Kirana-Malani Basin. Our results reveal that the Neoproterozoic was a time of extreme changes in tectonic conditions in the Kirana Malani Basin. Additionally, the SSDs found in the Sharaban Formation may help to understand the paleo-tectonics, tectono-dynamic reconstructions and structural kinematic studies in the NE Gondwana and other terrains like India (Bilara Formation), China and Siberia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".