MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063383553 · doi:10.1029/2008eo520002

Widespread Secondary Volcanism Near Northern Hawaiian Islands

2008· article· en· W2063383553 on OpenAlexaff
Michael O. Garcia, Garrett Ito, Dominique Weis, D. Geist, L. Swinnard, T. A. Bianco, A. F. Flinders, Brian Taylor, Bruce Appelgate, C. Blay, Diane Hanano, Inês Nobre Silva, Terry Naumann, C. Maerschalk, K. S. Harpp, Branden Christensen, Linda Sciaroni, T. Tagami, Seiko Yamasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Marine Fisheries ServiceWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVolcanismGeologyVolcanoEarth scienceMantle (geology)TectonicsLithosphereGeochemistryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hot spot theory provides a key framework for understanding the motion of the tectonic plates, mantle convection and composition, and magma genesis. The age‐progressive volcanism that constructs many chains of islands throughout the world's ocean basins is essential to hot spot theory. In contrast, secondary volcanism, which follows the main edifice building stage of volcanism in many chains including the Hawaii, Samoa, Canary, Mauritius, and Kerguelen islands, is not predicted by hot spot theory. Hawaiian secondary volcanism occurs hundreds of kilometers away from, and more than 1 million years after, the end of the main shield volcanism, which has generated more than 99% of the volume of the volcano's mass [Macdonald et al., 1983; Ozawa et al., 2005]. Diamond Head, in Honolulu, is the first and classic example of secondary volcanism.

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)0.000
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207