MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909658472 · doi:10.1029/2018gl080301

Insights on Hydrothermal‐Magmatic Interactions and Eruptive Processes at Poás Volcano (Costa Rica) From High‐Frequency Gas Monitoring and Drone Measurements

2019· article· en· W2909658472 on OpenAlexaff
J. Maarten de Moor, John Stix, Geoffroy Avard, Cyril Muller, Ernesto Corrales, J. A. Diaz, Alfredo Alan, Jorge Brenes, J. F. Pacheco, Alessandro Aiuppa, Tobias P. Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhreatomagmatic eruptionPhreatic eruptionGeologyVolcanoPhreaticExplosive eruptionMaarMagmaHydrothermal circulationGeochemistryEarth scienceSeismologyGeophysicsPetrologyAquiferGroundwater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Identification of unambiguous signals of volcanic unrest is crucial in hazard assessment. Processes leading to phreatic and phreatomagmatic eruptions remain poorly understood, inhibiting effective eruption forecasting. Our 5‐year gas record from Poás volcano, combined with geophysical data, reveals systematic behavior associated with hydrothermal‐magmatic eruptions. Three eruptive episodes are covered, each with distinct geochemical and geophysical characteristics. Periods with larger eruptions tend to be associated with stronger excursions in monitoring data, particularly in SO 2 /CO 2 and SO 2 flux. The explosive 2017 phreatomagmatic eruption was the largest eruption at Poás since 1953 and was preceded by dramatic changes in gas and geophysical parameters. The use of drones played a crucial role in gas monitoring during this eruptive period. Hydrothermal sealing and volatile accumulation, followed by top‐down reactivation of a shallow previously emplaced magma body upon seal failure, are proposed as important processes leading to and contributing to the explosivity of the 2017 eruption.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations93
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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