MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414600423 · doi:10.1130/2025.2565(08)

The Cretaceous–Paleogene Ross Lake fault system: Relationships between magmatism and faulting during large-scale translation in the northern North American Cordillera of Washington and British Columbia

2025· book-chapter· en· W4414600423 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert B. Miller, Michael P. Eddy, Stacia M. Gordon, Joe D. Dragovich, Frank P. Raviola, Yuem Park, Sourav Karmakar, Alex Hoinville

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyloniteSinistral and dextralFault (geology)Fault scarpShear zoneStrike-slip tectonicsMetamorphic rockTectonicsGneissEchelon formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The ≥10-km-wide, long-lived Ross Lake fault system is part of a ≥500-km-long zone of Paleogene, NW-striking, high-angle faults in the northern North American Cordillera. This fault system forms the eastern boundary of the exhumed Late Cretaceous–Eocene North Cascades magmatic arc and is marked by metamorphic discontinuities and focused magmatism. The Ross Lake system consists of two major sets of faults. The eastern set of the Hozameen–North Creek fault forms the western boundary of the Jurassic–Cretaceous Methow sequence and in part separates the sequence from its likely metamorphic equivalents. Dextral slip along this segment of the fault system is only constrained to between ca. 87 Ma and 48 Ma. The northernmost strand of the western fault set, the Ross Lake fault (sensu stricto), is a vertical zone of horizontally lineated mylonite that separates upper-amphibolite-facies rocks of the Skagit Gneiss Complex from lower-grade metamorphic rocks to the east. Traced to the SE, the Ross Lake fault is interpreted to step westward ~5 km across a gently to moderately dipping zone containing rocks buried to >30 km depth. The fault continues along strike for ~80 km as the Gabriel Peak tectonic belt, which is a moderately to steeply NE-dipping mylonite zone that records dextral shear in the north and reverse shear farther south. Movement in this transpressional zone occurred from potentially as early as ca. 82 Ma to ca. 58–55 Ma. The tectonic belt is truncated in the south by the Foggy Dew fault zone, which contains higher-grade fault rocks than the on-strike Hozameen–North Creek fault. The Foggy Dew fault zone was active from at least 63–55 Ma and ended by 49 Ma. It records oblique dextral-normal slip (down-to-the-E) marking the regional transition in northern Washington and southern British Columbia from transpression to transtension, and extension farther to the east. The Foggy Dew fault zone is truncated to the SE by the ca. 49–48 Ma Cooper Mountain batholith. South of this intrusion, slip is potentially transferred across strike westward to the Eocene dextral Entiat fault within the North Cascades arc. Field relations and geochronologic data are interpreted to indicate that during the active duration of the fault system, numerous magmatic intrusions led to complex rheological transitions that influenced the location of shear and helped the Ross Lake system respond to changing tectonic regimes. Melt probably initially weakened the shear zones, and strain was subsequently focused along rheologically strong pluton margins after pluton crystallization. Offsets of contacts in the northern extent of the Ross Lake fault system suggest that cumulative dextral slip on the fault system was likely ≥125 km but <400 km. This dextral slip occurred at a time when paleomagnetic data indicate large northward translation of the Insular superterrane. The fault system disrupted and shuffled rocks within the eastern part of paleomagnetically defined Baja–British Columbia and is important for paleogeographic reconstructions of the North American Cordillera.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America eBooksSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207