MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034125579 · doi:10.1139/e05-093

Spectral and dynamical hints on the time scale of preparation of the 5 April 2003 explosion at Stromboli volcano

2006· article· en· W2034125579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberto Carniel, Ramón Ortiz, Mauro Di Cecca

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrombolian eruptionVolcanoSeismologyGeologyEvent (particle physics)Scale (ratio)LavaImpact craterGeophysicsAstrobiologyPhysicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stromboli volcano is well known for its continuous strombolian activity. Moreover, the volcano occasionally shows effusive phases, the latest in 1985–1986. On 28 December 2002 Stromboli entered a new effusive phase, accompanied by different paroxysmal events that led to considerable hazards for inhabitants and tourists on the island of Stromboli. On 30 December 2002 a major sector collapse affected the Sciara del Fuoco slope and initiated a tsunami. On 5 April 2003 a powerful explosion, which can be compared in size with the most recent explosion in 1930, covered a large part of the normally tourist accessible summit area with bombs. As this explosion was not forecasted, although the island was by then effectively monitored by a dense deployment of instruments, in this paper, we tackle the problem of highlighting the time scale of preparation of this event and conduct a search for possible precursors. For this purpose, we analyze the seismic data preceding the paroxysm with spectral and dynamical methods, highlighting that this paroxysmal event can be seen as the final result of a dynamical phase that started at least 2.5 h before the event. Therefore, this is the time scale during which the search can and should be made for possible precursors. Moreover, the application of the "material failure forecast" method suggests that this final dynamical phase may be just the final acceleration of a process that was building up for at least several days prior to the event.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207