MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409417293 · doi:10.1038/srep13069

Ten-year helium anomaly prior to the 2014 Mt Ontake eruption

2015· article· en· W2409417293 on OpenAlexaff
Yuji Sano, Takanori Kagoshima, Naoto Takahata, Yoshiro Nishio, Emilie Roulleau, Daniele L. Pinti, Tobias P. Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Taiwan University
KeywordsVolcanoGeologyExplosive eruptionVulcanian eruptionHeliumSeismologyAnomaly (physics)Dense-rock equivalentGeochemistryMagmaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mt Ontake in central Japan suddenly erupted on 27(th) September 2014, killing 57 people with 6 still missing. It was a hydro-volcanic eruption and new magmatic material was not detected. There were no precursor signals such as seismicity and edifice inflation. It is difficult to predict hydro-volcanic eruptions because they are local phenomena that only affect a limited area surrounding the explosive vent. Here we report a long-term helium anomaly measured in hot springs close to the central cone. Helium-3 is the most sensitive tracer of magmatic volatiles. We have conducted spatial surveys around the volcano at once per few years since November 1981. The (3)He/(4)He ratios of the closest site to the cone stayed constant until June 2000 and increased significantly from June 2003 to November 2014, while those of distant sites showed no valuable change. These observations suggest a recent re-activation of Mt Ontake and that helium-3 enhancement may have been a precursor of the 2014 eruption. We show that the eruption was ultimately caused by the increased input of magmatic volatiles over a ten-year period which resulted in the slow pressurization of the volcanic conduit leading to the hydro-volcanic event in September 2014.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations101
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207