MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981831844 · doi:10.1002/2014gl061887

Laboratory experiments of forced plumes in a density‐stratified crossflow and implications for volcanic plumes

2014· article· en· W1981831844 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Carazzo, Frédéric Girault, Thomas J. Aubry, Hélène Bouquerel, É. Kaminski

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeDimensionless quantityVolcanoPanacheGeologyAtmospheric sciencesWind speedGeophysicsMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMechanicsPhysicsSeismologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The mass eruption rate feeding a volcanic plume is commonly estimated from its maximum height. Winds are known to affect the column dynamics causing bending and hence reducing the maximum plume height for a given mass eruption rate. However, the quantitative predictions including wind effects on mass eruption rate estimates are not well constrained. To fill this gap, we present a series of new laboratory experiments on forced plumes rising in a density‐stratified crossflow. We identify three dynamical regimes corresponding to increasing effect of wind on the plume rise. The transition from one regime to another is governed by two dimensionless velocity scales defined as a function of source and environmental parameters. The results are found consistent with the conditions of historical eruptions and provide new empirical relationships to estimate mass eruption rate from plume height in windy conditions, leading to valuable tools for eruption risk assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207