Igneous Rock Associations of Canada 2. Stages in the Temporal Evolution of Calderas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper combines the temporal model of caldera formation presented by Robert Smith and Roy Bailey in 1968 with recent volcanological concepts. Field examples, experimental models and theoretical studies are synthesized to illustrate the process of caldera collapse conceptually as a series of stages of eruption and deformation. During each stage, physical changes occur at the surface, within the underlying magma chamber, and within the subsiding block or blocks that lie between the surface and the top of the magma chamber. The stages are as follows: 1) magma chamber intrusion, 2) initial eruption, down sagging and the on set of subsidence, 3) main subsidence and eruption phase, 4) peripheral extension and eruption quiescence, 5) continued eruption, subsidence and change of eruptive style, and 6) resurgence and extrusion of lava domes and flows. These stages may then be repeated as a subsequent caldera cycle. Every caldera has an individual history and may deform in a different manner at each stage. The paper outlines how these stages can give rise to different caldera types. Sommaire Le present article fait etat des concepts et des publications les plus importantes en matiere d'effondrement des caldeiras. On y presente egalement une vue d'ensemble des differents types de caldeira, leurs caracteristiques illustrees d'exemples concrets, ainsi qu'un glossaire de la nomenclature afferente. Nous traiterons des concepts de piston, d'affaissement, d'effondrement concentrique par paliers, ainsi que de caldeiras de style chaotique, de fosse tectonique et fragmentaire. Il semblent que certaines caldeiras soient le resultat d'une combinaison de style. Nous considerons les interactions complexes de variables qui determinent la structure et la morphologie des caldeiras et en conditionnent le style.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".