Plateau Formation Controlled by Lithospheric Foundering Under a Weak Crust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lithospheric foundering is hypothesized to contribute to the formation of Earth's largest continental plateaus, but the predicted effects remain poorly constrained, especially considering variations in crustal strength. Here we propose that lithospheric foundering involving a hot, weak crust can explain aspects of topography and crustal deformation in mountain belts. We explore this hypothesis using numerical models of orogenesis and foundering in the Southern Puna Plateau in the Central Andes. Contrary to previous models of foundering involving a strong crust, which are characterized by subsidence and shortening, a weak crust results in surface uplift and upper‐crustal horizontal extension, which is accommodated by horizontal shortening in peripheral regions. Our model explains data such as the timing and location of exhumation and basin sedimentation as a response to foundering. The model also shows that foundering is capable of converting a high‐relief, broken‐foreland region into a high‐elevation, low‐relief plateau in a convergent tectonic setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".