The role of viscous magma mush spreading in volcanic flank motion at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiple mechanisms have been suggested to explain seaward motion of the south flank of Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i. The consistency of flank motion during both waxing and waning magmatic activity at Kīlauea suggests that a continuously acting force, like gravity body force, plays a substantial role. Using finite element models, we test whether gravity is the principal driver of long‐term motion of Kīlauea's flank. We compare our model results to geodetic data from Global Positioning System and interferometric synthetic aperture radar during a time period with few magmatic and tectonic events (2000–2003), when deformation of Kīlauea was dominated by summit subsidence and seaward motion of the south flank. We find that gravity‐only models can reproduce the horizontal surface velocities if we incorporate a regional décollement fault and a deep, low‐viscosity magma mush zone. To obtain quasi steady state horizontal surface velocities that explain the long‐term seaward motion of the flank, we find that an additional weak zone is needed, which is an extensional rift zone above the magma mush. The spreading rate in our model is mainly controlled by the magma mush viscosity, while its density plays a less significant role. We find that a viscosity of 2.5 × 1017–2.5 × 1019 Pa s for the magma mush provides an acceptable fit to the observed horizontal surface deformation. Using high magma mush viscosities, such as 2.5 × 1019 Pa s, the deformation rates remain more steady state over longer time scales. These models explain a significant amount of the observed subsidence at Kīlauea's summit. Some of the remaining subsidence is probably a result of magma withdrawal from subsurface reservoirs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".