MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102133128 · doi:10.1029/2006gl026013

Ice core evidence for a second volcanic eruption around 1809 in the Northern Hemisphere

2006· article· en· W2102133128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Yalcin, Cameron P. Wake, K. J. Kreutz, Mark S. Germani, Sallie I. Whitlow

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTephraGeologyVolcanoDense-rock equivalentVulcanian eruptionNorthern HemisphereIce corePhreatomagmatic eruptionPeléan eruptionExplosive eruptionClimatologyPaleontologyMagma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A volcanic signal observed in ice cores from both polar regions six years prior to Tambora is attributed to an unknown tropical eruption in 1809. Recovery of dacitic tephra from the 1809 horizon in a Yukon ice core (Eclipse) that is chemically distinct from andesitic 1809 tephra found in Antarctic ice cores indicates a second eruption in the Northern Hemisphere at this time. Together with the similar magnitude and timing of the 1809 volcanic signal in the Arctic and Antarctic, this could suggest a large tropical eruption produced the sulfate and Antarctic tephra and a minor Northern Hemisphere eruption produced the Eclipse tephra. Nonetheless, the possibility that there were coincidental eruptions of similar magnitude in both hemispheres, rather than a single tropical eruption, should not be discounted. Correctly attributing the source of the 1809 volcanic signal has important implications for modeling the magnitude and latitudinal distribution of volcanic radiative forcing.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207