MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2547522661 · doi:10.1002/2016gl071153

Preexplosive conduit conditions during the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano (Java, Indonesia)

2016· article· en· W2547522661 on OpenAlexaff
Mélissa J. Drignon, Tonin Bechon, Laurent Arbaret, Alain Burgisser, Jean‐Christophe Komorowski, Caroline Martel, Hayden Miller, Radit Yaputra

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheCalifornia Institute of Technology
KeywordsGeologyVolcanoExplosive eruptionLava domePumiceMagmaLavaDome (geology)SeismologyElectrical conduitStrombolian eruptionEffusive eruptionExplosive materialGeochemistryMagma chamberPetrologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 2010 eruption is the largest explosive event at Merapi volcano since 1872. The high energy of the initial 26 October explosions cannot be explained by simple gravitational collapse, and the paroxysmal explosions were preceded by the growth of a lava dome not large enough to ensure significant pressurization of the system. We sampled pumice from these explosive phases and determined the preexplosive depths of the pumices by combining textural analyses with glass water content measurements. Our results indicate that the magma expelled was tapped from depths of several kilometers. Such depths are much greater than those involved in the pre‐2010 effusive activity. We propose that the water‐rich magma liberated enough gas to sustain the explosivity. Our results imply that the explosive potential of volcanoes having dome‐forming, effusive activity is linked to the depth from which fresh magma can be evacuated in a single explosion, regardless of the evacuated volume.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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