{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03773584905660377, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012006861063464836, 'mean_word_length': 5.824561403508772, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Testing inferences from palaeocurrents: application of zircon double‐dating to Miocene sediments from the Hengchun Peninsula, Taiwan

Detrital zircon provenance studies that combine low‐temperature fission‐track and high‐temperature U–Pb single‐grain age dating are powerful in constraining sediment provenance by documenting the tectonothermal evolution of the sediment source(s). We apply these techniques to Miocene (12–6 Ma) sandstones of the Hengchun Peninsula, southern Taiwan, which, based on diametrically opposite palaeocurrents, have a controversial provenance. U–Pb grain ages range from the Miocene (8 Ma) to Archaean (2.5 Ga). Cretaceous thermal cooling is recorded by detrital zircon fission tracks at Loshui and Lilongshan. Permian fission‐track grain ages account for <33% of zircon ages from Loshui, while at Lilongshan, Jurassic/Triassic grain ages account for 33–66% of all zircon fission‐track ages. Minor (<12%) Miocene age components are detected in both formations. These new data suggest that the primary sources of these Miocene sediments were similar. A simple model is proposed invoking sediment reworking in this complex tectonic setting.