MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097748295 · doi:10.1029/2020jb020459

Integrating Magnetotelluric and Seismic Images of Silicic Magma Systems: A Case Study From the Laguna del Maule Volcanic Field, Central Chile

2020· article· en· W3097748295 on OpenAlexaff
Darcy Cordell, Martyn Unsworth, Benjamin Lee, Daniel Díaz, N. L. Bennington, C. H. Thurber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsGeologySilicicVolcanoMagmaGeophysicsMagma chamberSeismologyVolcanismPetrologyMineralogyElectrical resistivity and conductivityTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Imaging silicic systems using geophysics is challenging because many interrelated factors (e.g., temperature, melt fraction, melt composition, geometry) can contribute to the measured geophysical anomaly. Joint interpretation of models from multiple geophysical methods can better constrain interpretations of the subsurface structure. Previously published resistivity and shear wave velocity (Vs) models, derived separately from magnetotelluric (MT) and surface wave seismic data, respectively, have been used to model the restless Laguna del Maule Volcanic Field, central Chile. The Vs model contains a 450 km 3 low‐velocity zone (LVZ) interpreted as a region with an average melt fraction of 5–6%. The resistivity model contains a conductor (C3) interpreted as a region with a melt fraction >35%. The spatial extents of the LVZ and C3 overlap, but the geometries and interpretations of these features are different. To resolve these discrepancies, this study investigates the resolution of the MT data using hypothesis testing and constrained MT inversions. It is shown that the MT data are best fit with discrete conductors embedded within the larger LVZ. The differences between the MT and seismic models reflect resolution differences between the two data sets as well as varying sensitivities to physical properties. The MT data are sensitive to smaller volumes of extractable mush that contain well‐connected crystal‐poor melt (C3). The seismic data have lower spatial resolution but image the full extent of the poorly connected crystal‐rich magma storage system. The combined images suggest that the LdMVF magma plumbing system is thermally heterogeneous with coexisting zones of warm and cold storage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207