The Trans-Hudson Orogen (THO) of North America and the
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paleoproterozoic and Cenozoic record, respectively, of continent-continent collision that is notably similar in scale, duration, and character (St-Onge et al. 2006). In THO, the tectonothermal evolution of the lower-plate involves (1) early thin-skinned thrusting and Barrovian metamorphism, (2) out-of-sequence thrusting and high-T metamorphism, and (3) fluid-localized re-equilibration, anatexis and leucogranite formation. The crustal evolution of the Indian lower-plate in HKTO involves (1) early subduction of continental crust to UHP (ultra-high pressure) eclogite depths, (2) regional Barrovian metamorphism, and (3) widespread high-T metamorphism, anatexis and leucogranite formation. The shallow depths of the high-T metamorphism in HKTO are consistent with early to mid-Miocene ductile flow of an Indian lower-plate mid-crustal channel, from beneath the southern Tibetan plateau to the Greater Himalaya. Melt weakening (Jamieson et al. 2004) of the lower-plate in THO is not observed at a similar scale probably due to the paucity of pelitic lithologies, and consequently formation of a mid-crustal channel is not required to account for the documented tectonothermal evolution of THO’s lower plate. Tectonothermal events in the upper-plate of both orogens include pre-collisional accretion of crustal blocks, with for example the North Atlantic craton of Greenland and Canada being in a similar tectonic position to the South China block in Asia (St-Onge et al., 2008), emplacement of cumulative Andean-type plutonic suites, and consequent, multiple phases of high-T metamorphism (St-Onge The Trans-Hudson Orogen of North America and the Himalaya-
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".