MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896785095 · doi:10.4401/ag-7812

Modeling lava flow propagation over a flat landscape by using MrLavaLoba: the case of the 2014–2015 eruption at Holuhraun, Iceland

2018· article· en· W2896785095 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Simone Tarquini, Esther Hlíðar Jensen, Gro B. M. Pedersen, Sara Barsotti, Diego Coppola, Melissa Pfeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Geophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Science FoundationMcGill University
KeywordsLavaGeologyFlow (mathematics)VolcanoScale (ratio)Field (mathematics)GeomorphologyCalibrationGeophysicsSeismologyGeometryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the emplacement of the 2014-2015 lava flow in Holuhraun (Iceland) a new code for the simulation of lava flows (MrLavaLoba) was developed and tested. MrLavaLoba is a probabilistic code which derives the area likely to be inundated and the thickness of the final lava deposit. The flow field in Holuhraun progressed through a fairly flat floodplain, and the initial limited availability of topographic data was challenging, forcing us to develop specific modeling strategies. The development of the code, as well as simulation tests, continued after the end of the eruption, and latest results largely benefitted from the availability of improved topographic data. MrLavaLoba simulations of the Holuhraun scenario are compared with detailed observational analyses derived from the literature. The obtained results highlight that small-scale morphological features in the pre-emplacement topography can strongly influence the propagation of the flow. The distribution of the volume settling throughout the extension of the flow field turned out to be very important, and strongly affects the fit between the simulated and the real extent of the flow field. The performed analysis suggests that an improvement in the code should allow adaptable calibration during the course of the eruption in order to mimic different emplacement styles in different phases.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GeophysicsSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207