MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015157671 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2019-0240

The age of the Tseax volcanic eruption, British Columbia, Canada

2020· article· en· W3015157671 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Glyn Williams‐Jones, René W. Barendregt, James K. Russell, Yannick Le Moigne, Randolph J. Enkin, Rose Gallo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of LethbridgeSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTephraGeologyLavaDense-rock equivalentVolcanoExplosive eruptionVulcanian eruptionEffusive eruptionGeochemistryRadiocarbon datingSeismologyPaleontologyMagma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent volcanic eruption occurred at Tseax volcano that formed a series of tephra cones in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. The explosive to effusive eruption also formed a 32 km long sequence of Fe-rich Mg-poor basanite–trachybasalt lavas covering ∼40 km 2 . Oral histories of the Nisg_a’a Nation report that the eruption may have caused as many as 2000 fatalities. The actual eruption date and question of whether there was one or multiple eruptive episodes in the 14th and 18th centuries are, as of yet, unresolved. New radiocarbon dating of wood charcoal from immediately beneath vent-proximal tephra deposits and complementary age information suggest an eruption in 1675–1778 CE (95.4% probability) was responsible for the formation of the tephra cone. New paleomagnetic and geochemical data from the tephra cone and lava flows suggest there is, in fact, no statistically significant difference in time between the explosive and effusive deposits and that they formed during a single eruptive episode.

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)0.002
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207