MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080025945 · doi:10.17014/ijog.5.1.13-30

Deformasi Gunung Kelud Pascapembentukan Kubah Lava November 2007

2010· article· en· W2080025945 on OpenAlexaff
Nia Haerani, M. Hendrasto, Hasanuddin Z. Abidin

Bibliographic record

VenueIndonesian Journal on Geoscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLavaGeologyGeochemistryVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DOI: 10.17014/ijog.v5i1.90The eruption of Kelud Volcano in 2007 was started with an increase in the seismic activity on September 2007. It was ended with a lava dome formation inside the crater lake on 3 November 2007. This phenomenon showed the change of eruption behavior compared to the last eruption on February 1990 that was an explosive one. Result from the GPS observation method during three periods, which are: April, August, and October 2008 showed that the vector displacement on each measured point was affected dominantly by structural geology forces as a crustal stabilisation after the last phase of November 2007 eruption. There was also a minor displacement as the result of magma migration around the points that were close to the lava dome. The magma migration occurred in a relatively shallow depth and was associated with an aseismic zone. The deformation that occurred as a result of magma migration toward the surface was calculated to determine the magma supply and magma injected. The result then was compared to illustrate a mechanism of deformation during April – October 2008. The comparison of magma supply and magma injected within these periods showed that the inflation still occurred, but it was not supported by a surface manifestation. This inflation could be false because of data discontinuity, or it is actually a part of deflation trend.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

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)0.0120.004

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndonesian Journal on GeoscienceSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207