The Benkar Fault Zone: An Orogen-Scale Cross Fault in the Eastern Nepal Himalaya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Benkar Fault Zone (BFZ) is a recently recognized, NNE-striking, brittle to ductile, cross fault that cuts across the dominant metamorphic fabric of the Greater Himalayan Sequence (GHS) and the Lesser Himalayan Sequence (LHS) in eastern Nepal. 40Ar/39Ar-muscovite cooling ages along a transect across the BFZ in the GHS indicate movement younger than 12 Ma. To understand the mode of genesis, and seismo-tectonic implications of the BFZ, we mapped this fault from the Everest region in the upper Khumbu valley toward the south, across the Main Central Thrust, into the LHS and the Greater Himalayan Nappe. We recognize a series of cross faults segments, which we interpret the BFZ system. The currently mapped section of the BFZ is >100 km long, and its width is up to 4 km in the LHS. The BFZ is semi-ductile in the GHS region but is brittle in the south, where it is expressed as gouge zones, tectonically brecciated zones, sharp fault planes, and segments of nonpenetrative brittle deformation zones. From petrographic and kinematic analysis, we interpret largely a right-lateral, extensional sense of shear. Our work did not continue into the Sub-Himalaya, but the BFZ may continue through this zone into the foreland as documented in other Himalayan cross faults. While several genetic models have been proposed for cross faults in the Himalaya and other convergent orogens, we suggest that the BFZ may be related to extensional structures in Tibet. Understanding cross faults is not only important for the tectonic history of the Himalaya but due to the co-location of cross faults and seismogenic boundaries, there may be a causal relationship. Cross faults also follow many of the north-south river segments of the Himalaya and weakened fault rocks on the valley walls may enhance the landslide hazard in these areas.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".