MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2161792782 · doi:10.1002/2014gl061205

Sulfur budget and global climate impact of the A.D. 1835 eruption of Cosigüina volcano, Nicaragua

2014· article· en· W2161792782 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc‐Antoine Longpré, John Stix, Cosima Burkert, Thor H. Hansteen, Steffen Kutterolf

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsVolcanoExplosive eruptionImpact craterGeologyVulcanian eruptionAtmosphere (unit)Earth scienceIce coreClimatologyPhysical geographyMagmaGeochemistryAstrobiologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large explosive volcanic eruptions can inject massive amounts of sulfuric gases into the Earth's atmosphere and, in so doing, affect global climate. The January 1835 eruption of Cosigüina volcano, Nicaragua, ranks among the Americas' largest and most explosive historical eruptions, but whether it had effects on global climate remains ambiguous. New petrologic analyses of the Cosigüina deposits reveal that the eruption released enough sulfur to explain a prominent circa A.D. 1835 sulfate anomaly in ice cores from both the Arctic and Antarctic. A compilation of temperature‐sensitive tree ring chronologies indicates appreciable cooling of the Earth's surface in response to the eruption, consistent with instrumental temperature records. We conclude that this eruption represents one of the most important sulfur‐producing events of the last few centuries and had a sizable climate impact rivaling that of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→