MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404860561 · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae428

Lithospheric strike-slip faulting in central Tibet since 35–32 Ma and implications for the incipient Asian extrusional tectonics

2024· article· en· W4404860561 on OpenAlexaff
Haijian Lu, Haibing Li, Xiang Zhongjin, Marco G. Malusà, Chunrui Li, Zhiyong Zhang, Lin Wu, Xuxuan Ma, Jiawei Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Science Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
FundersChinese Academy of Geological SciencesChina Geological SurveyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeologySeismologyTectonicsLithosphereStrike-slip tectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset age and depth of the central Tibet strike-slip faults are two still unresolved fundamental issues with regard to the Cenozoic tectonic evolution of central Tibet. Here we present a comprehensive dataset of geochronological, geochemical and structural data on recently discovered en-echelon dykes representing the incipient development of strike-slip faulting from the Lunpola basin in central Tibet. Our results provide evidence for mantle-derived, bimodal magmatism linked to lithospheric-scale strike-slip faulting at 35-32 Ma, and demonstrate that the central Tibet strike-slip faults are at least 20 Ma older than previously estimated (15-8 Ma). We suggest that these faults were originally connected with the lithospheric-scale Jiali and Ailao Shan-Red River shear zones exposed farther east, forming part of a straight, 2500-3000 km-long lithospheric shear zone that favored mantle upwelling and magmatic intrusion coeval with substantial uplift (1.5-2 km) of the central Tibet valley in the early Oligocene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Science ReviewSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207