MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1829662551 · doi:10.1002/2015gl065863

The origin of Mauna Loa's Nīnole Hills: Evidence of rift zone reorganization

2015· article· en· W1829662551 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey Zurek, Glyn Williams‐Jones, Frank A. Trusdell, Simon Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyBouguer anomalyRiftGravity anomalyRift zoneVolcanoMass wastingSeafloor spreadingSeismologyGeomorphologyLandslidePaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to identify the origin of Mauna Loa volcano's Nīnole Hills, Bouguer gravity was used to delineate density contrasts within the edifice. Our survey identified two residual anomalies beneath the Southwest Rift Zone (SWRZ) and the Nīnole Hills. The Nīnole Hills anomaly is elongated, striking northeast, and in inversions both anomalies merge at approximately −7 km above sea level. The positive anomaly, modeled as a rock volume of ~1200 km3 beneath the Nīnole Hills, is associated with old eruptive vents. Based on the geologic and geophysical data, we propose that the gravity anomaly under the Nīnole Hills records an early SWRZ orientation, now abandoned due to geologically rapid rift-zone reorganization. Catastrophic submarine landslides from Mauna Loa's western flank are the most likely cause for the concurrent abandonment of the Nīnole Hills section of the SWRZ. Rift zone reorganization induced by mass wasting is likely more common than currently recognized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→