MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142163627 · doi:10.1029/2011gl048540

In-situ degassing study on crystal-bearing Stromboli basaltic magmas: Implications for Stromboli explosions

2011· article· en· W2142163627 on OpenAlexaff
Liping Bai, Don R. Baker, Margherita Polacci, Reghan J. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyVolcanoBasaltSeismologyPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] Three-dimensional crystal and bubble sizes and distributions in experimentally produced vesicular crystal-bearing Stromboli basalts and natural scoria were studied with X-ray microtomography (μCT) at high (1.85 μm) and low (5.46–9.0 μm) resolution. The permeabilities from lattice Boltzmann (LB) simulations and experimental measurements are about 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than in aphyric Stromboli basalts at porosity 31.6–55.3%. We propose that the higher permeability in crystal-bearing samples results in highly efficient degassing in shallow, highly porphyritc (HP) magma as opposed to the deeper, aphyric (LP) magma. In paroxysmal explosions, the LP magma flows up in a cylindrical conduit due to the density and viscosity difference between the two magmas. This type of convection can cause the LP magma with exsolved gas to be efficiently transferred through the overlying HP magma, potentially resulting in the more-violent paroxysmal explosions.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.327
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

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207